In Interview With USA Today’s FTW, CNN Anchor Rachel Nichols Misses One Key Thing

In her interview with USA Today’s For the Win (FTW) yesterday over the NFL’s handling of the Ray Rice domestic violence incident/suspension matter, CNN anchor Rachel Nichols had multiple good points. But one thing seems to be repeatedly over-looked in all of this, including by Nichols.

Nichols was asked if Roger Goodell and the NFL had imposed stronger penalties initially, they would then be under such scrutiny in this matter now.

She responded:

RN: I think if Ray Rice had initially been suspended for a year, which at the time would have been by far the harshest penalty ever levied for this sort of thing, this entire spiral would never have occurred. But the initial light punishment sent a message that they didn’t take this issue seriously enough. Not looking hard enough for evidence in the Rice case sent a message they didn’t take this issue seriously enough….

This is true: the initial light punishment of a two game suspension handed down in July, when to the public it sounded like “he hit her, she got knocked out somehow as a result,” did send that message. And there was some outcry. And in Late August, Goodell issued a pretty strong apology; stating he didn’t get it right, and that he league has instituted a new tougher domestic violence policy.

But the media’s job is not only to hold the powerful accountable, but also to provide all the relevant facts and some perspective, and serve as a check upon groupthink and assumption; not add to the latter.

In this matter (and perhaps increasingly on multiple issues in America today, caught as it is in direct competition with the unfiltered free for all of the rest of the Internet, huge corporate backing, and criticism from all over), the media has in large part not just tried to hold Goodell and the NFL accountable, but has also sometimes served to foster groupthink and assumption

The initial light suspension of Rice, while seemingly a mistake at the time made, and certainly a mistake in hindsight as the video showed the facts to be what was thought (and, even, a little worse, as the blow was direct and severe), was not a miscarriage of justice; there were mitigating factors that led to it; the league commissioner did issue an apology after the fact. And the NFL is not the relevant arbiter of justice.

In other words, the initial suspension was a mistake, and did seemingly trivialize the issue. But it was not the glaring indictment on the NFL in terms of its handling of domestic violence offenses by its players, that it has been taken as. (The fact that the Carolina Panther’s Greg Hardy was allowed to play pending his appeal of a domestic violence conviction this summer was also criticized by Nichols, as well as many others; but there is nothing unreasonable in the NFL’s policy to wait until a case has been properly vetted through the court system, though it’s easy to see how it gives the impression otherwise.)

What seems to be happening is that there was little attention paid to the issue of domestic violence, and now all this reasonable outrage over the general issue is being directed at the NFL; with some legitimacy perhaps, but likely not enough to warrant the overall response.

It may not look good, but the NFL is allowed to botch its suspensions.  Rice had an exemplary record. Regardless of the tendencies of woman who are unfortunately subject to a pattern of abuse, the victim’s wishes here are also relevant, and she stood firmly by Rice. There was also no prior history.

According to a report out Friday by ESPN, there is evidence – even if it’s not something the rest of the league, or the public rightfully wants the commissioner to be doing, and the evidence has been refuted by the Ravens – that the Ravens pushed the commissioner a little bit for favorable suspension treatment given Rice’s massive work for children’s charities, exemplary record, contriteness, and, from other sources, his wife’s support.

(Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, in a long press appearance also came out and gave the kind of more specific and honest press conference that Goodell should have given, while also very strongly refuting most of ESPN’s allegations.)

Most importantly of all, the commissioner had the resolution of our court system to go on – including that by a prosecutor and judge who had seen the videotape in question. (This doesn’t exculpate the 2 game suspension, which still seems light even without viewing the tape, but it is extremely relevant to the degree of league culpability).

There is a reasonable argument that the NFL should have looked beyond that – and a stronger one, given, ironically, how strong armed Goodell has often been. (A point made by many).

But the fact that the NFL didn’t, is not the enormous wrongdoing it is being made out to be, given the multitude of seeming mitigating facts. That is, not of the action that Rice took, but of the NFL’s handling of the matter).  And given that the NFL is not an arbiter on justice, but an employer, if a visible and highly scrutinized one whose players, some feel, may serve as role models.  (Which in turn an argument for the NFL to hold players to a higher standard than average employees for otherwise unrelated behavior, but also an argument for the media not to sensationalize stories of otherwise only technically “public” wrongdoing that are otherwise one of hundreds of thousands of such instances of wrongdoing.)

The NFL may have made a mistake in not digging further. And their initial handling of the matter gave a bad impression. And, even with the apology and new domestic violence policy guidelines a month later, and the seeming knee jerk indefinite suspension (followed then by an oddly directed investigation into the initial Rice handling) barely two weeks after that when the video surfaced, their subsequent handling of it didn’t help much; and in some ways, oddly, hurt them more.

As has the fact that Goodell hasn’t come right out and cited what he is specifically sorry for, and what the NFL specifically got wrong, and why it did, rather than all of the generic seeming broad statements and platitudes he has seemed to utter; which to a very non receptive American audience, inclined to already not give him any benefit of the doubt, has not gone over well.

But it has largely been perception and a snowballing of media attention, as well as the imbalanced stimuli of a provocative video (unlike in the hundreds of thousands of cases where there is no video), greatly magnified by the Raven’s and NFL’s immediate and knee jerk response to that video in marked contrast to their earlier handling, that has created a lot of the impression that exists today.

Not just Goodell’s poor handling of this.

The real question is whether or not Goodell also dissembled over the matter.

In terms of the NFL and league and its public trust, that is more egregious than just poor judgement and handling on the matter, no matter how much we want to perhaps questionably conflate the “seriousness” of the broader topic of domestic violence – which nearly 1 in 5 men men has acknowledged engaging in (although presumably many incidents were also less severe than Rice’s pretty severe blow) – with how the NFL happens to handle its own league disciplinary actions for one player, over one, one time incident, for a case that was released from the court system to the PreTrial Prevention (PTI) program on the advice of a prosecutor, favorable or now, who asserted the case otherwise would have led to probation, which is less proactive and helpful than PTI.

 

Raven’s Coach John Harbaugh Doesn’t Directly Contradict Assertion He Originally Pushed to Have Rice Cut

 

On Friday, among several other claims, ESPN reported that Baltimore Ravens’ head coach John Harbaugh, as well as head of player personnel George Kokinis, wanted to cut running back Rice back in February for his actions in a domestic violence incident.

Yesterday, the Ravens released a statement addressing multiple claims from the article, including the claim that Harbaugh and Kokinis originally wanted Rice cut,which Harbaugh seemed to contradict:

4. From the article: …the images (on the first videotape) horrified Ravens coach John Harbaugh, according to four sources inside and outside the organization. The Super Bowl-winning coach urged his bosses to release Rice immediately, especially if the team had evidence Rice had thrown a punch…But Harbaugh’s recommendation to cut the six-year veteran running back was quickly rejected by Ravens management: owner Bisciotti, team president Cass and GM Newsome.

John Harbaugh (Ravens coach): “I did not recommend cutting Ray Rice from the team after seeing the first videotape. I was very disturbed by that tape, and I told people that the facts should determine the consequences. When I saw the second
videotape, I immediately felt that we needed to release Ray.”

Yet this statement doesn’t necessarily answer the question.

The outside the elevator footage doesn’t fully explain what happened inside the elevator. And although Harbaugh may have advocated doing so anyway, it would be presumptuous to assume otherwise and cut a player based upon that.

The way it is worded, its possible Harbaugh means not just the outside elevator footage, but all information he had during that time. But all his statement technically addressed is whether he argued for cutting Rice based upon that footage: not whether he actually argued for cutting Rice or not back in February for any reason, as the ESPN report alleges.

Thus his statement is ambiguous, and still leaves open the question. Which in turn suggests that either the wording was sloppy, or that the ESPN report was correct and Harbaugh does not want to acknowledge it.

Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the NFL and the NFL Player’s Association (NFLPA) precludes both the league and a team from disciplining a player for the same act:

Section 4. One Penalty: The Commissioner and a Club will not both discipline a player for the same act or conduct.  The Commissioner’s disciplinary action will preclude or supersede disciplinary action by any Club for the same act or conduct.

Although the action likely can not appear to run afoul of Section 4, a football team still has the discretion as to whether or not to bench or release a player if it simply doesn’t want to play them, or have them on the team, regardless of what disciplinary action the league takes. So if the Ravens had decided to release Rice, they likely could have.

But even if they were initially going to, or should have cut Rice if they were going to later when the video came out, or argued for lenient treatment by the league (as per the ESPN report) given Ray’s exemplary conduct and the statements of his fiance or not, the incident is not the mountain of a scandal it’s largely being made out to be. While the public may weigh in on any action taken or not taken, the NFL and its teams are not the court system or a punitive body; but essentially private employers whose discretionary role is to impart disciplinary action for conduct otherwise unrelated to the job as they see fit, in terms of the requirement of the employment.

Given the strong personal conduct policy agreed to by the NFL and the NFLPA, the image of “clean” football players the league has tried to project; the highly visible nature of NFL players; and the argument by some that NFL players are role models, and, although they shouldn’t, therefore influence illegal behavior among impressionable or morally bereft individuals by their off the field behavior (if so thereby raising not only the question of discipline for their off the field nature, but also the question of focused media attention upon it as well as its relevancy to do so), the NFL reasonably chooses to discipline its players for most off the field illegal behavior.

But an incident of a team and or the league appearing to badly botch the handling of a one time incident, however provocative, of a wild punch to an innocent person – here a female, no less, further offending the sensibilities of those many (myself included) who believe a person should never hit a woman regardless, and who abhor domestic violence of any kind – is still not an enormous scandal.

However, given the NFL’s popularity and image, and in its commissioner’s history of being somewhat high handed in his disciplinary decisions, it is a big story.  It is also relevant to and reflective upon the league. And Harbaugh’s statement was vague in terms of understanding just what happened initially. If he did advocate for Rice to be released back in February – unless just based upon seeing the outside elevator footage alone (though denied by Harbaugh as per above) – it would lend support to ESPN’s allegations that some of the team’s leaders had heard more apt descriptions of the directness and severity of the punch than initial reports indicated.

However, in another statement released as part of the Raven’s response yesterday, Harbaugh is much more specific, and contradicts the report and any insinuation that he had direct knowledge of the severe blow that in a verbal spat Rice had wildly delivered to this then fiance, in that elevator.

John Harbaugh: “Ray Rice never told me that he punched her. In June, when I spoke to ESPN The Magazine, it was still my understanding that Ray had not punched her and was acting defensively.”

Wow. If accurate, this also presumes that General Manger Ozzie Newsome never directly told Harbaugh otherwise; which, odd as this might seem at first blush, is somewhat consistent with ESPN’s report of Newsome as both parental and believing in second chances, as well Newsome’s statement in the Raven’s response that Rice told him “he hit her,” and that Newsome did not press for details.

But either Harbaugh is not being accurate, ESPN got it very wrong; sources that allege Rice was very forthcoming and detailed with the NFL in terms of what had happened inside the elevator have it wrong; or Rice was detailed with the NFL, and not the Ravens.

Or, when it came to this pillar of the community who had raised millions of dollars for children’s charities, who had named his daughter after the Raven’s team, who had a long standing relationship with his now wife dating back to college (and a friendship dating back to high school), and whose wife unconditionally supported him and seemingly all but pleaded for leniency (and as the victim, her say matters), and who several high up in the Raven’s organization viewed almost as family, Rice, since it was much earlier in the process than when he met with the NFL, was a little less direct with the Ravens, and the Ravens viewed the entire situation a bit more softly rather than “harshly,” and decided to let the court system (and the NFL, with or without please for leniency)handle it, rather than make a big to do themselves.

While this may have been a mistake  – and in hindsight was – under the facts as they existed at the time, it was probably at least within the realm of reason:

A team does not “have” to release a player for hitting his fiance, if the fiance herself begs for the team not to, there is every reason to indicate it was a first and one time incident, the player shows genuine contriteness, and immediately enters counseling, pending court resolution of the matter, which in this case was, in addition later favorable to the player as well. In fact a team does not have to release a player for any reason.

Given the huge miscarriages of justice that unfortunately go on daily, under these facts as laid out, this particular incident, while it looks bad, probably isn’t the enormous scandal it’s made out to be. Even with, weird as it looks, league commissioner Roger Goodell then only suspending Rice for a meager two games in July, then issuing an apology for “not getting it right”and issuing new NFL domestic violence policy guidelines in August, then suspending Rice indefinitely in September after the inside elevator footage procured by a celebrity sports news site, was publicly released, which in reality should have only illustrated what was already known, and not changed the situation.

Apart from the awful wrong doing by Rice himself (a separate issue and the underlying behavior, and only bringing up the broader league question in the first place), the only real “wrong doing” – as opposed to mistake, even multiple mistake – is apparently, whether in response Goodell has also been misleading about the entire affair.

Making and even acknowledging he has made mistakes is one thing. But as commissioner, misleading the public, for a league that works so hard to protect its image and does rely at least in part, or seems to want to cultivate, public goodwill, is more than a mistake.

Surprisingly, a report out very late Saturday night citing sources that alleged Goodell was given accurate and detailed information by Rice over the incident, didn’t get a huge amount of attention. The report suggests that Goodell not only mishandled this, but has misled over it as well. Just under two weeks ago, in an interview with CBS host Norah O’Donnell, Goodell stated:

When we met with Ray Rice and his representatives, it was ambiguous about what actually happened.

If Goodell was given a detailed and accurate account of the incident (which again, is only alleged by unnamed sources, which may be connected to Rice in his NFLPA grievance with the NFL), then there is nothing ambiguous about what happened, and the assertion otherwise by Goodell untenable, and in stark contrast with his “I didn’t get it right” apology from August. And should be a largewr issue. That is, Goodell making mistakes is one thing. Much of the public simply assuming (as we are apt to do, often incorrectly and cynically) that Goodell lied is also just one thing, no indication that he did.

But evidence that Goodell did dissemble over this as well, is another.

If accurate, it would reflect more poorly on the league than a simple botched handling of what was at heart still a discretionary suspension in the Rice case – and should reflect a lot more poorly. And under these facts, may, and probably should, cost Goodell his job.

 

Disturbing New Allegations Help Explain A Key Missing Piece to the Ray Rice Puzzle

 

One of the main issues involving the national soap opera that can be referred to as the Roger Goodell Ray Rice NFL scandal was a troubling little question that, relatively speaking, received scant attention.

Namely (emphasis in original):

After the video surfaced, the NFL [implied something along the lines that Ray himself gave the impression that he didn’t hit Janay very hard; that they were really scuffling back and forth, and that he hit her with an open hand in response, and she fell and was knocked out].

That is still wrong, and…never excusable. But a two game suspension for such action is not necessarily an outrage, or something that the NFL needed to come out and issue an official public apology for, particularly given all the other mitigating factors – such as Ray’s outstanding record prior to the incident, Janay’s full support, his immediate counseling and cooperation, and the county court system’s election for PreTrial Intervention……

Yet Goodell, in response to public outcry, did in fact issue this very emphatic and public apology.

Why?

That question seemed to possibly go to at least part of the heart of this matter, yet has barely even been raised.

A partial answer to it, however, has been realized in an ESPN report on Friday – though the Ravens claim it contains some inaccuracies that it will address nest week after their trip to Cleveland this Sunday.  It alleges that several Ravens, including team president Dick Cass (who as one of the links above notes, is one of those who suggested that they were told Rice had not “knocked her out” but had “slapped her” and and she fell and hit her head), had far more intimate knowledge of either the video, or what the video showed, than intimated or claimed. Namely, that Rice hit his fiance directly, and very hard, and in a manner very, very different, from a “slap.”

Yet the ESPN report, along with several earlier reports and interviews, suggests that this information was apparently overshadowed by those in the Ravens’ organization that tried to downplay, disbelieve, or ignore it, and who fully backed Rice for a multitude of factors; not the least of which was that he was almost like a son to several high up in the Ravens organization, a face of the team, had raised millions for children’s charities, and his wife completely defended and supported him over the original incident.

And the ESPN report also suggests that for reasons such as these, the Ravens pressed Goodell to go lightly on Rice.

This makes some sense in terms of helping to explain the NFL’s handling of the matter, in combination with the facts  that Goodell also knew that the county prosecutor had reviewed the videotape in detail and had recommended Rice for New Jersey’s Pretrial Intervention program rather than trial; and, that, as is hinted from multiple other sources, Ray’s wife (and fiance at the time of the incident) also staunchly defended Ray, and pressed hard in his defense; and given Ray’s exemplary record, favorable resolution with the court system, immediate counseling and significant evidence of contrition and cooperation since the incident, this was possibly also somewhat respected and taken into consideration. (Or just used as an excuse after the fact. But it is also logical, and consistent.)

All of this explains part of why Goodell may have gone more lightly on Rice than he felt may have been warranted initially – sufficient to issue a public apology and change (strengthen), the league’s domestic violence policy this past August.

But given all the reasonable and considerable mitigating factors, it doesn’t necessarily explain why Goodell actually felt compelled to officially declare that “I didn’t get it right” (unless Goodell simply bows to public pressure and nothing else, which is also problematic) – if in fact in a drunk scuffle, Rice, with an otherwise exemplary record, and with a slap during the semi defensive exchange, wound up inadvertently knocking over a tipsy Janay, who then in turn hit her head. (Or something at least moderately leaning more in that direction than a direct, unquestionable, powerful punch.)

Now there is a far more full explanation, and one that seems to make sense.

If the ESPN report is accurate in this regard, Rice, even if heavily drunk at the time it happened, was fully aware of the incident the very next day, presumably before even having had chance to see elevator footage that had probably not even yet been procured. Per ESPN:

The day after the incident in Atlantic City, Rice met Kyle Jakobe, his personal trainer and one of this closest friends, at Jakobe’s gym, Sweat Performance, in Timonium, Maryland. In Jakobe’s office, Rice wept as he described what happened between him and his future wife. “I’m holding him, he’s crying, he’s devastated.”

Also either way it is likely that Rice, if not, would come to know the details well enough, by being shown the footage by his attorney or another party; and despite wanting to protect himself knowing he had Janay’s support, might have been forthcoming with the NFL about it, either because it was the right thing to do, or because of the simple fact that the video tape existed. Or both.

According to a NYDaily News report just out very early this morning, this is in fact exactly what happened. According to the News, a source alleged that Rice was extremely detailed and accurate in his accounting of the event to Goodell.

And if Rice was extremely forthcoming – as much as it helps explain some of the seemingly all over the board, and somewhat troubled (as opposed to troubling, which it also was) handling of the matter by Goodell – it also suggests that Goodell has not been.

The News may have it wrong. But if not, it helps reconcile the disparity between the intimations of ambiguity about the event by Goodell on the one hand, and the major public apology for the tepid two game suspension by Goodell, even before the video came out, on the other. And in that regard, it is also consistent with the facts that are so far known, and helps to explain them a little better; rather than, as so much in this has before it, simply raise more questions.

And, since mishandling the situation and making “mistakes” of judgment is one thing, while dissembling about it is another, if true, it is also not going to look good at all for the current NFL commissioner:

According to a source who attended the meeting with Rice, Goodell and a cadre of NFL and Ravens officials on June 16 in the NFL’s midtown offices, the running back replayed the scene in the elevator, including the sequence of events that left Palmer unconscious on the floor. Because Rice believed Goodell had already seen the video TMZ eventually released, the source said, Rice was grimly specific in his retelling — a fact that further undermines Goodell’s claims of ignorance.

“Ray owned it from day one,” said one source of Rice’s descriptions of events. “He went in as if (the tape) existed. Everyone knew it existed. He knew if the commissioner hadn’t already seen it, he would see it.'”

The report may not be accurate. But if it is, this story will just keep on going; and calls for Goodell’s removal, which may be starting to look more and likely, will likely only continue, if not grow stronger. And, more reasonably so.

America’s New Sport

Old National Pastime: Football.

New National Pastime: Piling on National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell, over his poor and haphazard seeming handling of the game suspension of former Ravens running back Ray Rice under the league’s player conduct policy, for a first time incident last winter where a drunken Rice heavily struck his then fiance, also drunk; causing her to fall down, hit her head, and be temporarily knocked out.

(It appears that although this certainly does not excuse or even mitigate the initial causative action, Rice’s fiance at the time, then Janay Palmer, now Janay Rice, was knocked out in part because of the alcohol, and was not too badly harmed, relatively speaking anyway.)

Although Goodell initially apologized after imposing a rather tepid appearing two game suspension, and revamped the league’s specific domestic violence policy to a six game suspension for a first time offense, at issue is whether Goodell or the league had seen a copy of the security camera footage showing the blow to likely be harder and more direct than, perhaps, the NFL had believed.

Or, more pertinently, did the video show the blow be harder and more direct than the league had been in part led or encouraged to believe, by a somewhat hypocritical Ravens football team (or Rice): A team which otherwise, when the video did surface, dropped Rice from the team like a hot potato, and likely prompted the Commissioner, at least in part, into his similarly knee jerk “indefinite league suspension of Rice,”also just hours after the video was released just this past September 8.

In some of the Ravens’ defense, head coach John Harbaugh, along with director of player personnel George Kokinis, according to a recent ESPN OTL investigative report, wanted to cut Rice back when the incident initially occurred. According to the report, Harbaugh was likely overruled by others in the organization, some of who may have had a somewhat pollyannaish view of the incident.  (According to the ESPN, likely not President Dick Cass, who is alleged to have been told the tape was “f_ _ _ing horrible,” by Rice’s attorney Michael Diamondstein.) And who in some part looked at Rice as family – particularly since Rice otherwise had an unblemished record, had named his and Janay’s daughter “Rayven,” in honor of the team, had the Baltimore part of the team name tattooed on his forearm, had raised millions of dollars in charity money for sick children, and whose wife Janay stood staunchly by this side and defended him over the incident.)

The released video of the actual battery by Rice (a doctored clip by celebrity news site TMZ that further brands the image into viewers minds by looping the single blow over and over repeatedly), provoked even more of an uproar than had the initial announcement of the two game suspension.

And it do so, notwithstanding the earlier apology over the original short suspension, and the toughening of the league’s domestic violence policy, announced back in late August: In other words, as if the public, as well as the NFL, now knew something much different. (When the basic and relevant facts appeared simply to be visualized by the video, not altered.)

Making the original handling of the matter seem even much more extreme and indefensible than it was, as suggested here and here, the Ravens did then immediately cut Rice within a few hours of the video surfacing. They should not have done this since they elected not to initially, particularly since, as several Ravens seem to make clear, Rice leveled with them).

Making matters worse, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell also, again within hours of the release of the video, and after the Ravens had cut him, then suspended Rice indefinitely from the league. Goodell quite possibly did this in ill thought out knee jerk reaction to the Ravens action, the initial inappropriately short suspension, the public outcry, and some sort of – again, ill thought out – attempt to fix damage to the NFL’s image and their handling of this matter.

And yesterday, this piece appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, on the issue. It is a piece that seems to throw all sense of proportion and perspective to the wind; something that, if not always to such an exaggerated degree, has been seemingly commonplace with respect to this latest national soap opera and largely nationally imagined monster scandal issue.

It is a soap opera fueled by the otherwise somewhat irrelevant fact that it revolves around a disturbing issue that otherwise receives too little attention – and one which, outside of this one of tens of thousands of such incidents that involve an NFL player and a botched handling of the player’s league game suspension penalty, is likely still receiving too little of the right kind of attention:

That is, the issue of domestic violence: A problem which appears to be slightly less prevalent among NFL players than in society at large, not far more prevalent. But even if the research suggesting that it is less prevalent is incorrect (and there could be several reasons for this), it is still a very widespread and systemic problem among society at large, as much as in the NFL.

Goodell’s handling of the matter, nevertheless, has been very poor, and more than a little ironic, as some NFL players are mildly delighted about some of the heavy scapegoating scrutiny being heaped upon Goodell. Goodell, who, himself, has for years been arbiter, judge, jury and moral dictator, as far as the league goes, for NFL players – and (until now) resistant to reasonably ceding some of that excessive authority to independent arbitration for player disputes.

As Sally Jenkins, in the provocative article on the matter linked to above therein re-emphasizes, former NFL over achiever and defensive standout James Harrison, who hates Goodell (“‘I’d have whispered in his ear, ‘Why don’t you quit and do something else, like start your own league in flag football?‘”) famously tweeted after the initial story broke (and which was re-tweeted over 29,000 times): “Ain’t no fun when the rabbit got the gun, huh?”

Meaning that Goodell always had all the power, dictating what the terms would be for everyone else. Now everyone is shooting for Goodell, instead. (Harrison, who received several penalties by the league for hard hits during his playing time, also humorously tweeted to Goodell what penalty Goodell might impose for his own negligence in overseeing this matter.)

But all this, while a “good,”if unsettling story on its root issue, doesn’t mean this is the scandal of the century, or that Goodell’s conduct has been dastardly or involved what we would consider classic, serious “wrong doing.” Implementing player suspensions is a discretionary, voluntary aspect of the NFL, not a law, and there are human considerations and judgments to be made – even when, as in this case, the issue seems to have been botched through a series of interconnected errors and possibly even prejudices.

Yet the San Francisco Chronicle (it’s fine headline notwithstanding), takes unintentional hyperbole and satire of our new national soap opera to new heights, when, not in satire, the article states that an investigation into Goodell and his NFL team’s handling by a former director of the FBI (which if anything is overkill, and ill-thought for other reasons), overseen by two of most well respected of the thirty two team owners (The Giants John Mara and the Steelers Art Rooney) who employ Goodell and his NFL operators, and for whom the investigation is largely being conducted, is not independent enough

Considering how important the probe is.

“Considering how important the probe is”?

Domestic violence is the important issue, not the “probe” about how the NFL handled what was still a routine league disciplinary matter with minimal consequence to the larger issue.

Yet according to this article, the probe into how the NFL arrived at its “arbitrary” employer related (and completely discretionary) suspension, is so important, that even conducting such an investigation in the first place is not enough. And even having said otherwise unneeded “investigation,” be conducted by a former FBI Director, of all people, is not enough, just because he works for a large law firm that has done business with the NFL, never mind that the investigation is ultimately for the NFL, not some other independent national body or state. Yet this is something which also seems to have been completely lost, even though it remains the most fundamental point regarding this completely discretionary investigation – and one for the NFL owners to learn better how this was handled.

What is this probe over? A cover-up of a huge national crime and subversion of our national election or legislative process?

No. Again, it’s over whether an NFL player got a 2 or 6 (or, above the new policy, 8) game, totally league policy determined, and totally up to the league, suspension, for conduct unrelated to football but consisting of off the field illegal behavior that was already addressed by our legal system, and whether it was “handled right,” by the league therein.

And over whether the NFL saw or ignored a video that may have prevented the NFL from issuing its original watered down 2 game suspension – which it apologized for anyway, before any such video came out. And which would instead have, or should have, correctly caused the player under the specific new league policy instituted after the initial 2 game suspension was issued – and sensibly, under the old policy – to be issued the more appropriate 6 game suspension.

“Yes, this certainly requires an independent counsel at least as dramatic and independent as the Warren Commission, no doubt.” Or maybe the 9/11/01 Commission, the United Nations, or the IPCC. Certainly not something as “measly” as a former FBI Director who works for a law firm that, gasp, has done work for the league, over a completely discretionary and voluntary league game play suspension over otherwise unrelated off the field illicit behavior.

And over the mishandling of a player suspension length that was initially too low, with perhaps insufficient weight given to the chance that the facts were a little less Pollyannaish than the NFL or some on Rice’s team wanted to believe, and the subsequent and somewhat knee jerk alteration of that suspension to a level that was probably too high, and certainly in contravention of the new suspension length for such first time offenses under the very same new domestic violence incidence policy just instituted.  And for an unrelated outside of employment related first time offense which the Country Prosecutor, too leniently or not, saw fit to recommend for a more effective and proactive PreTrial Intervention rather than a likely conviction and probation.

Yes, in keeping, albeit satirically, with the non satirical spirit of the Chronicle’s piece, that certainly is THE scandal of the millennium; and requires a commission of historic national and international significance, and not just by a measly former FBI Director, as so aptly noted in the Chronicle. Itself normally a fine newspaper, but here, joining in the national  hysteria “just a wee bit”; if here the word “wee” in fact is to mean, “to an excessive degree – rather than doing what good journalism is supposed to do – serve as a check upon it.

Maybe when we are done with that, or the NFL is done with that, or both, the broader issue of domestic violence, can be more relevantly, and a little less hysterically, addressed.

Two Key Things Overlooked in the Ray Rice NFL Roger Goodell Brouhaha

An initial two game suspension, over a domestic violence incident, for then Baltimore running back Ray Rice handed down by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell this summer, led to a public outcry over its seeming leniency.

Subsequently, Goodell re-examined how the NFL had handled the issue, and issued a public apology, stating, “we didn’t get it right,” and took full responsibility for it.

Concomitant with that proclamation, Goodell also stated the NFL was toughening its domestic violence policy for any employees in the NFL. Under this new policy, a first time domestic violence offense would carry a six game suspension.  A second offense would carry a ban from the league, with the right to petition for reinstatement after a period of one year.

Less than two weeks ago, a TMZ procured video publicly emerged of the actual incident – showing what many thought we already knew – Rice hitting his then fiance sufficient to knock her down, hit her head, and cause her to temporarily lose consciousness as a result. But it also showed – or clarified – that the punch was not all half-hearted, but delivered in fairly brutal appearing fashion.

So, boom. The NFL, in response, argued that the video showed the facts to be not quite what the NFL thought or was led to believe, even despite the NFL’s apology only a few weeks before, and that therefore “suspending” the initial two game suspension and instituting a full six game NFL suspension for Rice, at least consistent with the NFL’s new domestic violence rules, was appropriate and warranted.

Except the NFL didn’t.

Within a matter of only a few hours after the video surfaced on TMZ on Monday, September 8, Ray’s team, the Baltimore Ravens, who assumedly should have known that Rice had hit his fiance on purpose, that she had fallen, hit her head, and was knocked out, acted as if the video was one of the more frightful and “new,” things ever seen, and immediately cut Rice from the team. (Although as that last link shows, head coach John Harbaugh, on the other hand, did appear generous in terms of the team’s, or at least Harbaugh’s, continued commitment toward otherwise being supportive of, and available for, Rice.)

Shortly after and again within a few hours total of the public release of the video, the NFL suspended Rice indefinitely. (Note, in the second draft of this article, I wrote “Goodell” instead of Rice. It was probably a Freudian slip. And perhaps a good idea.)

Why was not clear.  But, along with the Ravens’ actions, it made it seem as if the video conflicted tremendously with what had been known and thought.  Yet the video, while it may have added some information (though that is still not completely clear), showed what was generally thought to be already known. Rice hit her – hard, as it turns out, she fell, and knocked her head.

And, this response of the Ravens and the NFL made it seem as if the video was some sort of stunning revelation for the NFL. And therefore, and notwithstanding their subsequent apology over it and statement of domestic violence policy intensification as a result – it made the NFL’s initial handling of the matter appear completely out of sync with the NFL’s general illegal off the field activity guidelines and policies. And made the NFL and Goodell in particular, appear even more insensitive to the issue of domestic violence.

Thus, despite the initial, pre-video appearance apology, it made it seem like the NFL didn’t really pay attention to the matter initially, and that it treated or treats domestic violence like some sort of lesser issue.

In short, it made the NFL seem as if it had its hand caught in the cookie jar. Only it wasn’t cookies here, it was domestic violence, and the brutal image of an athletic running back lashing out and violently punching his fiance and immediately felling her to the ground; and then, in footage already seen months earlier, acting drunk and indifferent while trying to move her out of the elevator, until a hotel employee appeared and asked him to hold up.

And, in short, it was also one of the most ill advised moves the NFL could possibly have made. By the Ravens and the NFL engaging in this knee jerk, and rather severe fashion almost immediately upon the release of the video, it made it seem as if the NFL, despite issuing punishment even more severe than under its new, reasonably strong, domestic violence policy, was soft on domestic violence and trying to cover up for a mistake, as if it hadn’t already acknowledged that mistake – thereby undoing the commissioner’s initial forthcoming-ness and humble, candid, acknowledgement of said mistake, and also making it seem that the NFL didn’t know what it was doing.

The facts as to how and why the NFL handled this the way that it did are still not fully known – although as of just this afternoon, courtesy of an explosive new report by ESPN’s Outside the Lines, it has become more apparent that the Ravens played a large role in the initial mild handling of this by the NFL. Which in turn complicated the matter for the NFL. Which, in turn, from a PR standpoint, itself then handled the matter abysmally. That is, as the ESPN link suggests, the Ravens’ president was allegedly told that the video was “f***ing horrible” appearing, and other Raven personnel reportedly had the video described to them.

What is known is what happened:  Rice and his then Fiance Janay Palmer (now Janay Rice), both drunk – Janay apparently, and possibly both of them – very much so, walked into an elevator in an Atlantic City casino, in a spat. According to the AP, which was played a recording of the elevator security tape not made available to the public which included audio, they were cursing at each other. Inside the elevator, as the footage has clearly shown America, Janay, moving toward him, barely tapped Rice, just as she had several yards outside of the elevator – about as much of a threat as a kitten is to a Lion.

Rice then cold cocked her with one very swift punch, causing her to fall over. On the way down, she hit her head on the elevator railing, and in her inebriated state, apparently passed out.

Rice – as has already been well known since both the NFL and the public had seen this part of the footage months before the NFL issued its suspension – then awkwardly, and without much apparent concern, tried to move Janay out of the elevator, at which point a hotel employee approached him and apparently directed him to hold off. The employee also immediately stated, according to AP reports, “no police.”

Drunk or not, and regardless of what Janay said to Rice during the incident, the striking of her was despicable and unacceptable. Almost everyone agrees with this.

What it has turned into, however, is a verbal near lynching of the NFL and in particular it’s commissioner, Roger Goodell.

There are likely four specific reasons why: the power of image; the fast acting “story of the week” tendency in our current media and Internet age; the unsettling and emotional aspect of the troubling issue of domestic violence; and, last and most of all, the NFL’s, and in particular, Goodell’s handling of the matter.

Thus, in essence, a private citizen, engaging in a disturbing and almost brutal seeming one time punch of his fiance which was reviewed by the applicable court system and somewhat surprisingly deemed acceptable for Pretrial Intervention instead of a trial and possible sentencing, and who was initially suspended for two games as a result, and then ultimately suspended indefinitely while being simultaneously cut from his team, has turned into one of the largest sports scandals in years. And one which at least one or two otherwise reputable sources have otherwise called “possibly the biggest sports scandal of all time.”

But what’s the real scandal?

The NFL in part at least created this appearance of scandal, or at least its possibility if the media and public, then ran with it, by seemingly trivializing domestic violence in the public eye by initially handing out a two game suspension in contrast with the harsher suspensions the NFL often hands out for victim-less off the field incidents; then issuing an apology for doing so and then nevertheless still acting as if the video made public a little under two weeks ago – and which actually shows footage that the county prosecutor and judge, but not the public (nor, allegedly, the NFL) saw – somehow completely changed the facts of the case, rather than serve as a clarification of and possible augmentation to what basic evidence already existed.

The appearance of an NFL out of control was then, by sheer unlucky serendipity, made to appear much worse, when, in addition to two other pending domestic violence cases, perhaps its premier player at the same position Rice had played – running back – and a player who has been very active in children’s charities, was within days of the release of the Rice video suddenly charged with child abuse:  for using a tree branch, called a “switch,” to discipline his child to the point where the resulting wounds were alarming enough to lead the treating emergency room to call authorities for possible abuse.pictures, and pictures of which (in terrible places no less, likely caused by the child writhing and twisting to try to avoid the blows) were despicable.

This also raised the unsettling issue of child abuse, and, now that the issue of domestic violence was already in the forefront, added to the image of an NFL and (even though it was not the commissioner who beat his 4 year old with a switch),  a commissioner out of control. It also created a debate as to whether corporeal punishment is ever called for when disciplining children (a separate question as well from the issue of type, and degree). My answer is no – but if some parents feel differently, a one or two time slap on a soft spot on the body, never done in anger and with complete communication as to why, at least keeps the discussion within the bounds of reason.

With respect to the Ray Rice issue, which the timing of this unfortunate “domestic violence child abuse” incident only further magnified, all of the attention on the matter is good in terms of the negative attention being brought to the troubling issue of domestic violence (or, hopefully, violence of any kind).

It has not been so good for the NFL, Ray Rice, apparently his now wife, Janay Rice or NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.

But in so heavily scapegoating the NFL, as well as Goodell, there are two very key factors being overlooked here: What the suspension ultimately should have been, and why.  And consideration of the actual victim in this matter; this is the person that was hit, not the public, not Goodell, not the NFL, and not Ray Rice.

This article is not a defense of Goodell.  In fact, subjectively, and based in part upon my own personal biases about the game, I personally have been in favor of replacing Goodell as commissioner for a long time. I believe that for many true fans of the game of football itself, and not just fans of watching teams score, Goodell’s continued and heavy emphasis on rule changes that favor the offense over the defense, and in particular wide receivers over defensive backs, has watered down the quality and balance of the game; that his heavy push for a playoff expansion would denigrate the current excellent weighted playoff bye system, dilute the value of the most important later season games and differences between teams and what they do in their divisions, and undermine perhaps the most brilliant overall playoff structure in all of sports; and that, ironically even given this Rice situation where he initially appeared to have been overly soft, that Goodell is morally high handed.

And now Goodell’s very poor, inconsistent, and, ironically, still seemingly morally high handed handling of the Ray Rice incident, is only another very strong reason why.

But as poorly as Goodell and the NFL have handled this matter, those two key factors just mentioned are being left out in our overall consideration and assessment on the issue and on the NFL and Goodell.  And for a better, fairer, more even handed assessment, they need to be considered.

The first is that the Ray Rice Janay Rice incident is a perfect example of a first time domestic violence offense. Rice hit his then fiance and now wife very hard, and alcohol is never an excuse. But alcohol can be a slightly mitigating factor, and with both of them fairly drunk, it is here.  It also likely played a large role in her getting knocked out.

One punch is enough to kill someone, and is never excusable, and in such an instance as this – it is reprehensible.  But Rice did only throw one punch. His prior record had been clean, even outstanding. His conduct afterward was extremely contrite and cooperative, and he did immediately start counseling, whether under advice of his attorney (almost assuredly), or not.

Additionally, the county court system that dealt with this, however “minor” it may have been relative to the types of even more awful and harm causing incidents that Atlantic Country Superior Court may be used to dealing with, did review all the evidence, including the aforementioned tape, and elected to forego prosecution in the matter.

The woman standing by Rice’s side after the incident was not, as far as the evidence goes, a victim of any prior domestic violence at his hands, but instead someone who has known him since high school, dated him since years ago in college, and who steadfastly tried to defend him.

In short, it is a perfect candidate for the new, standard, six game suspension under the new policy. (Note that this does not mean that Rice’s actions in terms of morality are = to a six game NFL suspension, since we do have a court system; but rather that the NFL, in additionally disciplining it’s players, takes the action of domestic violence serious enough so that even a one time, first incident, results in a suspension of over a third of the season, on top of whatever other punishment stems criminally from the illegal action.)

Yet the NFL – in a matter of hours, no less, making the video itself appear extreme in the public eye, again, suspended Rice indefinitely, while his team, the Baltimore Ravens, cut him.

This raises the unsettling question as to why.

Yet the first key factor of the two being overlooked, and regardless of how tortured the path of its arrival, is that Rice was not only suspended for an amount suggested or required under the new tougher guidelines, he was, essentially, suspended for more.

Rice should have been suspended for six games, which would have been in line with the policy, as well as a definite amount of games, and constituted a response that was not seemingly knee jerk, and, well, frankly, “all over the place” appearing.

But the Ravens cutting Rice as well on the same day – and also within hours – of the public appearance of the video, only made this haphazard reaction by the NFL more likely, since the Ravens strong reaction also made it seem as if there was a much larger gap between what was already known and what the video showed. And both actions in tandem- the Ravens and the NFL’s, after the video was released, made the NFL look even worse in terms of their initial handling of the matter, by again in tandem making it very strongly appear as if the video showed a remarkable new development of set of facts in the case.

The Ravens subsequent cutting of Rice upon public release of a video, is also highly questionable. It is awful, if, as reported by ESPN’s Outside the Lines Rice’s attorney actually told the Ravens back in April that, the video looked “F***ing horrible,” and if the Ravens head of security shared a detailed description of what happened inside the elevator with team officials, as also alleged. To be told this back then, and then cut Rice upon release of the video, seems in some ways unacceptable.

Outside the Lines reports that the “horrible” statement came from Rice’s attorney, Michael J. Diamondstein – who remember represents Rice, and is representing him now in his suit against the NFL for his handling of this matter – although the report does not disclose or make clear who the source of the allegation to Outside the Lines is; only revealing that Diamondstein was unavailable for comment.  The statement “looks f _ _ _ _ _ g horrible” depending on context, could also mean something very different, particularly coming from Rice’s own attorney – as if the video gives a very false impression, and unfairly makes Rice look bad. This might sound like a stretch to some in the public, but anyone who practices or has practiced law knows it to be relevant.

Additionally, the statement was reportedly made to Ravens president Dick Cass, and if so there is apparently no knowledge as to whether Cass shared that information with anybody. And judging by the countenance of John Harbaugh in that press conference linked to above, and knowing Harbaugh in terms of having studied the NFL for many years, if not intimately and personally, it is unlikely to have been shared with Harbuagh, or at least shared clearly, in terms of showing Rice engaging in the vile act that we now see it to have been.

The information offered in ESPN’s report also seems to strongly support this view as well. And it also renders Harbaugh’s actions, upon seeing the video, more consistent with his initial views on the matter. It does not however fully explain the NFL’s reaction.

It seems though, at least in part, that since Rice was an exemplary Raven and upstanding member of the community who had “raised millions” for sick children, the NFL was first pressured by the Ravens to make the suspension of Rice light, then was made to look bad when the Ravens, perhaps not wanting to believe that the punch was so direct or vicious looking, later cut Rice upon seeing, along with the public, the video.

But the NFL’s similarly knee jerk response only worsened matters, while the Ravens response is not the NFL’s fault. It is also interesting, and fairly important, that again, according to the ESPN article the Ravens – and apparently Harbaugh in particular – considered cutting Rice upon initial reports of the incident, but instead opted to back Rice. This put the NFL in a bad position when the video came to light.

In hindsight it is easy to say the video should have been procured. And if they were willing to cut Rice over throwing a drunken, direct and hard hitting punch to his drunken fiance, the Ravens should have procured it. (In an interview with Baltimore TV station WBAL last week, owner Steve Bisciotti cited specifically that as his largest regret.)

But the case for the NFL getting the video, in foresight – not hindsight – is weaker. The NFL and Goodell had the Ravens, seemingly reasonably, pushing for a light suspension of a guy who bled Baltimore purple, who had the city name tattooed on his forearms, who named his daughter after the team, and who, again, raised millions for sick kids.

The NFL, which is not necessarily supposed to sit in an appeal type of judgment over our court system, also had the relevant county superior court, which reviewed the very same video tape now so explosively in the forefront of this issue, declare Rice a candidate for Pretrial Intervention. And a prosecutor who would later not only make a fantastic point about how the outrage over domestic violence is great but that “reality is reality whether it is captured on video or not,” who also intimate knowledge of applicable courts, believed that while a conviction could be procured – and was unfair to put the victim through – there would only be probation sentenced in the matter.

As suggested here, the NFL did not really know what it was doing in this sensitive matter.  As a result, and despite issuing a harsher penalty than Rice should have gotten under its new, tougher policies, it made the NFL look extremely bad, as well as, ironically, somehow still appear soft on and somewhat insensitive to, domestic violence; by making it seem as if the NFL botched the handling of the Rice case initially even more than it did.

It has also helped make this into a much bigger issue than it needs to be, and helped feed our innate media and public desire for a sensational story.(And this one now has plenty of twists and turns and intrigue, drowning out the fact that at heart its just a simple voluntary employer suspension policy for unrelated illegal criminal behavior, albeit in a very public and tax exempt, venue.)

And it has hurt Rice (that is, in terms of the suspension he likely would have gotten under the new domestic violence policy, failing any pending grievance against the league over the matter), and more importantly his wife, who – foolish though many may judge her to be – has a right to stand by him, support him, and support his opportunity to play.

And which is the second key factor here:  The victim. Who apparently all but pleaded with the NFL to go easy on Ray; to give him a chance; and that (as foolish as such an argument is) it was partially her fault.

It’s never someone’s fault who is hit without said action being in clear self defense, in any situation, let alone a woman’s being hit by a man, and let alone a woman who is petite in relation to a powerful running back.

But Janay’s account of events, and her full support of Ray, is still relevant. Again, she is the victim here. Her say matters. The fact that battered or repeatedly abused women often sadly feel psychologically compelled to defend their abusers should not strip Janay, as the victim, of her basic rights and desires in this matter. Particularly given that there is apparently no prior evidence of abuse or violence. And also given that, improvidently or not, Rice was allowed into the Pretrial Intervention Prevention program and has an unblemished record before and since; a history of exemplary behavior; and Janay, so far as we know, a long and largely unblemished history with him.

Goodell was right to also try to take into account Janay’s wishes. Even if he was in error to listen to the Ravens (particularly in hindsight, when the team was later to cut Rice upon seeing the video, and apparently, according to the afore-linked ESPN report anyway, contemplated cutting him well prior to it), and even if he was in error for issuing such a seemingly insensitively short suspension for what was being labeled a domestic violence incident, which to the public at least appeared to involve alarming facts – Rice hit her, she fell as a result and was temporarily unconscious. And for which, and prior to the release of the video, Goodell acknowledged the mistake, and changed the league’s domestic violence policy as a result.

But Janay, as the victim, had some rights, and still has some rights, in this matter. And she deserves some say in it, which appears now to have possibly been shut out of the process, due to the way this affair has unfortunately evolved.

Yet Goodell likely was initially at least somewhat sensitive to and respectful of Janay’s strongly expressed wishes, as well.  And, without appearing to make excuses, he has intimated as much.  And perhaps, as suggested by the ESPN report, Goodell was sensitive to the Ravens expressed wishes, consistent with the victim’s herself, to go easy on Rice because this was a one time incident and Rice was extremely cooperative, and played a large and generous part of the NFL’s goodwill in Baltimore. (And again, this discipline by the league, two game or indefinite suspension, is not mandated, but is ultimately a voluntary policy on the part of an employer, even if sensible or even effective public relations on the part of the NFL and seemingly beneficial to society.)

But remember, Goodell also apologized for his initial handling of the matter before the video came out, and instituted a stronger league domestic violence program in response.

Yet Goodell’s second major mistake – the first being the initial two game suspension – being that he wound up altering the original suspension anyway, was not then adhering to this new policy in response to the release of the video. If Goodell could undo the initial two game suspension to change it to an indefinite one in response to the release of the “video evidence,” he could just as easily have instead instituted, or at least be guided, by, the new policy, as a means of finally “getting it right,” just as he stated in his apology just a few weeks earlier.

But again, the Ravens seemingly knee jerk reaction in cutting a player over a video tape that they were ostensibly originally informed about, after the video was made public – as if it provided some remarkably new evidence, and when they had originally asked for leniency on Rice with the league over the same matter – rendered Goodell’s similar knee jerk indefinite suspension mistake more likely.  And may have painted him into a corner a little bit, or at least partially explain his actions.

And both – the Ravens and the NFL through Goodell – are culpable here. But what they are culpable of is poor judgment, and poor handling, perhaps very poor handling, of this matter.

Nothing much worse. And though an interesting, and, in terms of the domestic violence incident involved, disturbing story that also involves the repeated bungling by an image conscious and sometimes over controlling appearing NFL and NFL commissioner – making it all the more newsworthy – it is not a scandal for the ages.

Yet perhaps it is time for Goodell to step down, or the owners to require him to do so. Or at least, please, Roger, read this piece, and don’t dilute the best playoff structure in all of sports; stop heavily favoring the offense and restore some balance, and stop seeming to make it all appear about image and money.

Also, perhaps, while some might disagree, stop being, or at least appearing to be, so morally high handed.

And if you give another press conference about this matter, don’t go on with even more moral high handedness, and vague statements, without addressing and answering the basic fundamental questions – why did you initially apologize if the NFL’s view of what occurred was so much softer than the video showed; and if it was not, why did you respond so severely to the release of the video. Also, acknowledge the specific mistakes made, and don’t try to be policeman for the world. Just hold players accountable as representatives of the NFL fairly – in particular for violent behavior, which has to become seen as universally unacceptable in an advanced society – and without sounding all high and mighty in the process.

It’s bad enough that much of society, sitting now in casual judgment of you, is already sounding the same.  Even if it is, indirectly at least, for a good cause. Which, instead of the NFL, should be getting more direct attention.

 

Top Ten Reasons the Tampa Bay Buccanners Lost to the Atlanta Falcons Tonight

Updated below with graphic, but instructional “how not to” image of the Bucs night.

10. Coach Smith coached a really good game.

9.  Coach Smith coached a really bad game.

8.  In a statistical fluke, entire Bucs team has Devin Hester on its fantasy roster.

7.  The Bucs were all on twitter just before the game following the latest Adrian Petersen, Greg Hardy, Ray Rice and Roger “Two games,  no, wait, my bad, I apologize for getting it wrong, no wait, I don’t apologize because I didn’t see the video and Ray barely hit her so why should I apologize, no, wait, now I’ve seen the video with the rest of America so I’ll pretend I didn’t already apologize for getting it wrong, and instead act super quick and ignore my own new 6 game domestic violence rule and not only override Ray’s 2 game punishment, but suspend him indefinitely instead because of our foul-up, and then I’ll go dark while we waste the talents of a former FBI director to sort through the whole sordid mess” Goodell news; and just weren’t mentally prepared for the game.

6.  Per Bleacher Report, Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan was 32-2 when his passer rating is over 100; The Bucs liked the challenge of seeing if they could make it 32-3, so they tried to let him complete all his passes in the first half.

5.  The Bucs needed a new head coach.  Wait, no, that didn’t work…..Bucs needed a new starting quarterback – preferably a long time, solid but not great backup, who had some good games down the stretch last year for another team, instead of their second year guy who played really well as a rookie and who they needed to play and find out if they could build with him – unless, well – unless they could get someone as good as a decent but not spectacular second year back up to ruin any such logic or common sense…. So no ,that didn’t work…..Bucs needed to bring in an over priced pass rushing defensive end/linebacker for a 5 year 43.98 million dollar contract. Oh, wait, no that didn’t work…..The Bucs needed to swindle the hapless Patriots out of their all pro Guard for a mere tight end, since they drafted a tight end with the a 2nd round pick in the draft. Oh, wait, no…..

…….The Bucs need new owners, or a new GM. (I volunteer.)

Or, the Bucs need to get Jon “Find your beach, but mine ain’t coachin’ any more” Gruden back.

4.   All the NFL Florida football teams can’t be championship caliber every year. Or, rather, none of them can be.

3.  Bucs, jealous of all the attention fellow northern Florida NFL team Jacksonville got for being horrible two seasons ago and into last, desperately want to replicate.

2.  Everybody was picking on Commissioner Goodell, so Bucs promised: “Don’t worry, we got your back Rog’, we’ll divert away focus: We’ll lose so badly practically no one will even mention your name for hours!” Bucs new head coach Coach Smith Lovingly pleaded; “you can accomplish the same by a blowout win you know.” Team responded, “yes, but it’s not as sure a thing.”

1.  The Bucs are a really bad football team right now.

Update: You know things probably aren’t going your team’s way when your Center gets unsportsmanlike penalties, snaps the ball over the quarterbacks head, and into his own buttocks instead of the quarterback:

(Link Via here)

Ray and Janay: The Tale of an NFL Domestic Violence and PR Fiasco

Here’s a story: The NFL decides its players will have league ramifications for unrelated criminal behavior. The league then botches its handling of a domestic violence incident due to otherwise exemplary behavior on the part of the player involved; it being a one time incident, and the outspoken claims and support from the victim, And thus, in response, makes the suspension for this player too short.

Given that the NFL suspends its players for more than two games for drug infractions that hurt no one else – or maybe even regardless of this consideration – there is public outcry over a player, with or without a lot of alcohol involved, apparently hitting his fiance hard enough to where she falls and gets temporarily knocked out as result, and yet getting only a two game suspension from the NFL.

Then, in response, the NFL commissioner comes out and openly says he made a mistake with the short suspension, that he “didn’t get it right,” and, that the league has toughened its player domestic violence policy, and instituted guidelines of a six game suspension for a first domestic violence offense, and a ban with the right to petition for reinstatement after a year, for the second.

Then the celebrity news site TMZ gets hold of the video of the actual incident, one that the prosecutor and judge in the County (Atlantic) where the incident took place both saw, but which the public did not, and which the NFL claims it did not. And TMZ makes the video public.

Then, suddenly, in response, the video, at least in popular opinion, seemingly becomes considered to be one of the more sickening things ever. It almost becomes the “in” thing to have this opinion.

And what the video shows is disgusting. But it does not, however, show a serial wife beater, but a guy who engaged in a ridiculous and inexcusable but one time punch to his fiance in a moment of dual drunkenness, and which as a symbol, becomes the thing everyone gets outraged about. It is emotional to see, the player is a star, it is very public, and a public story. And getting upset over domestic violence is a good thing to get upset about.

But much worse happens every day, which goes uncovered, and unattended; or is covered, yet receives very little attention or outcry.

The strange thing in this story however is that the video didn’t add much new information to what was already known. If the NFL thought this player – we’ll call him “Ray” – punched her – We’ll call her “Janay” – and she hit something and got knocked out (which is what the video shows), then the two game suspension was very poor form. And despite the fact that the NFL didn’t have to suspend “Ray” at all, as a statement by the NFL it does seem to trivialize the incident.

But before the video came out the NFL essentially acknowledged this; stating that they made a mistake in issuing such a short suspension. The NFL Commissioner himself, again, had even stated: “I take responsibility both for the decision and for ensuring that our actions in the future properly reflect our values. I didn’t get it right.”

Yet after the video surfaced, the NFL implied that Ray himself gave the impression that he didn’t hit Janay very hard; that they were really scuffling back and forth, and that he hit her with an open hand in response, and she fell and was knocked out.

That is still wrong, and in my book never excusable or acceptable conduct. But a two game suspension for such action is not necessarily an outrage, or something that the NFL needed to come out and issue an official public apology, and mea culpa for, particularly given all the other mitigating factors – such as Ray’s outstanding record prior to the incident, Janay’s full support, his immediate counseling and cooperation, and the county court system’s election for Pre-Trial Intervention rather than trial and sentencing.

Yet the NFL, in response to public outcry, did in fact issue this very emphatic and public apology.

Why?

The apology suggests that the NFL was merely bowing solely to public pressure despite the fact that (if so) the public did not know all of the facts and also had some of the key facts wrong. Or suggests that the NFL had a hunch or more, before the video was made public, that the video showed something a little different than this “soft” version of actual back and forth scuffling and a softer hit and a fall, and that in this instance it instead showed what the initial public outcry was essentially based on, and which is not as soft of a story. Namely, the player involved flat out hit his then fiance, and she fell and hit her head and went unconscious.

Or it suggests that the NFL, far from being soft, is not at all soft on domestic violence in reality, and issued a major apology for the soft suspension for an act that it thought was much less egregious than it really was.

Or it suggests that the NFL was simply being guided by public opinion and trying to maintain a good public image, and thus, again, bowing to public pressure, even though the facts, as the NFL saw them, didn’t warrant it.

Or it suggests a desire on the part of the NFL or the commissioner to respect Janay the victims seemingly heart felt wishes.

Or some combination of the four.

But even if the video showed what was supposedly essentially known, the video apparently did not show what much of America thought. Or it if did, somehow seeing it made it “real,” where otherwise it was not real. Because when the video was shown, there was much more public outrage.

Yet it is hard to gauge just what contributed most to this outrage, because the NFL, upon the sudden public release of the video, reacted in a very strange way. Remember: the NFL acknowledged a full mea culpa and changed its domestic violence policy toward a fairly strict set of guidelines, and the commissioner himself even acknowledged he made a mistake prior to the celebrity gossip site TMZ’s acquisition and release of the video.

If the softened version of what had happened was the NFL’s true belief – that is, more scuffling, and less of a direct punch – this video showed something a little different; it showed essentially no real scuffling, just her perhaps half halfheartedly trying to slap him, with them both stating some really angry things at each other (which the video version shown to the AP, and which includes audio, suggests), and his strike being perhaps quicker and stronger, with hand apparently closed. But the rest is spot on to what was known.

So here is where our story gets interesting:  Within hours of the release of the video, the team that Ray played for immediately cut him as a player. And the NFL dismissed his earlier two game suspension, and promptly suspended him indefinitely.

These facts, along with the video and news of it itself, ran like wildfire across the nation; making this at one point the top trending story, not just the top trending sports story. People everywhere soon heard (or saw) that a “shocking new” video came out, and that the NFL had suddenly all but banned this player immediately in response.

No matter how logical we otherwise want to be about it, this conveyed the powerful idea that this video consisted of major new information which had not been known, and which information thus “shocked” the NFL itself.  And this in turn made the new video all the more sensationalist, and greatly widened the gap in perception between what this player had supposedly originally done, and what this video, in stark, dark, contrast, clearly showed.

When in fact that gap was not large at all, and, depending on how exactly the NFL “read” the original situation, was somewhat small, to nonexistent. (Remember, it could have been larger, but then the NFL’s major apology for the short suspension makes less sense.)

This ill thought out and seeming immediate “damage control” response of all but ditching all ties with Ray greatly amplified the perception of the video as some sort of sensational alteration or addition to the basic story, when it was not. And it also greatly amplified the perception of disconnect between the way the NFL originally handled this – two game suspension – and what the video showed.

All but forgotten, in an emotional sense anyway, was that the NFL had already acknowledged a mistake on this matter, and that the suspension should have been longer, and that the video is more consistent with the NFL’s earlier apology, than not.

But because of this huge gap between what was perceived to have been the first “story,” and the true video story – though it is unclear, being as the video showed the simple if direct story of him throwing out one fast athletic punch, her falling as a result, and hitting her head, what that “story” thus is – people immediately began to reasonably wonder in hindsight, and big time, why the NFL had not gotten the tape.

Also perhaps somewhat overlooked was that the NFL was not our judicial system; in foresight, the NFL did not necessarily need to see a tape that both prosecutor and judge had seen, and of a player who in the criminal system was put into the Pre-Trial Prevention program, of a situation that it may have thought it had a good handle on between those facts and the statements of the two actors (him and her) involved, and of his exemplary conduct prior to, and since.

At the same time, if the NFL was really interested in just what had happened exactly, they might have tried harder to get the tape, or state to Ray or his attorney “we have the discretion to suspend you for a lot of games under league policy and we need to see a copy of that video before we decide on a suspension.”

That the league did not do so, either shows they wanted to believe this player; or it shows that they already suspected that the conduct was more in line with what the video showed, and not the softer “scuffle” and open hand hit. (If not trained in martial arts an open hand is usually indicative of less intent, and usually accompanies a softer blow as well; if trained it has to be individually assessed.)

If the NFL really believed that it was not a full blow, and that they were scuffling, and both them were really drunk (this last fact seems not in dispute so far anyway), then – given these facts as well as the court’s viewing of the video and Janay’s reasonably expressed wishes as the victim – the NFL should not, even in response to the public outcry, have said it made such a large mistake, since if that was the case it did not. (Other than perhaps in such case failing to be skeptical of the Atlantic Country court system and making sure to get the video to see just what it showed.) Unless the NFL simply went overboard trying to curry good public favor with its apology (and in the process, ultimately not gaining any favor at all), and issued the apology for that reason alone, which seems less likely.

What was actually believed by the commissioner and the relevant parties at the NFL prior to the video being released is hard to pinpoint. But there were certainly some Pollyannaish or hopeful beliefs, such as those by Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti. This throws even more intrigue into the story, as Ravens general manager Ozzie Newsome – who was part of the “unanimous consent” to immediately cut Ray from the team after the video surfaced – insists that Ray didn’t lie.

Thereby, raising this question for Newsome and the Ravens: “If he didn’t lie, how come you cut him after a video showing him “not lying” surfaced?

This drastic response by the Ravens – to a video tape that showed that Ray “did not lie,” and thus at least more or less simply showed “what had happened and was already known,” and the NFL’s similarly severe and immediate response, together very powerfully made it seem as if the information contained in the video tape was wildly new. It had to have been: Why else would the NFL, which initially gave him such a short suspension over this exact same incident, suddenly all but sever all ties with this player.

But the information contained in the video was largely not new at all. And to the extent a little of what was contained in the video may have been new for the NFL, a response in line with their previously expressed mea culpa would have been consistent. Their response, instead,  was, again, consistent with the idea that the video, in contrast to what the NFL “knew” was explosive.

When it wasn’t.

But what would be the public outcry have been if, on top of the video itself, this incident didn’t get sensationalized by a “shocking” video that takes the one punch by Ray and plays it over and over and over; and, more pointedly, if the NFL had not acted in near immediate and somewhat final response as if Ray had never hit her, and then suddenly a video surfaced showing that, in fact, in direct contradiction, he did.

The public had already been upset over the matter. E.g.: “He hit her, and as result she fell and was knocked unconscious, and (one time blow or not) you only gave a two game suspension? What is wrong with you!”

To which reaction the NFL reasonably responded: “In this matter, a lot; we really screwed up, and we’re even instituting newer tougher domestic violence offense guidelines for all employees, not just players.

But what makes what the NFL did a more publicly available and seemingly outrageous mistake than the way the court system handled the matter – as commissioner Roger Goodell found when he reached out to experts initially – is not that in a big scuffle back and forth this person filled with alcohol happened to slap her and she was teetering from so much alcohol she fell and banged her head.

Instead, what makes it more outrageous seeming is that he punched her hard enough so that she fell and banged her head. Which is exactly what this new tape showed.  And the fact that, drinking heavily or not, she was knocked out as a result. As the part of the tape that was reviewed by the NFL and made public many months ago (showing footage of him trying to move her from the elevator), had already clearly shown.

Yet when the video surfaced the NFL suddenly dropped Ray like a bad dream. Even while the video showed the basic facts as they already existed. Or if it showed major new facts, as per the NFL’s understanding, it made the NFL’s initial suspension under all of the circumstances defensible, and their subsequent major public mea culpa excessive. (At the very least, while it provides more evidence that the NFL botched the handling of this (something not so much into dispute from nearly any quarters) this would be evidence that the NFL takes the issue very seriously, yet the NFL is currently being scapegoated for not doing so.)

And if the facts as the video shows them to be weren’t already known – at least in terms of the NFL’s way of looking at it – this was a good opportunity for the NFL to be able to get around their initial weak two game suspension, clarify what the NFL had originally thought, and clarify that this video provided enough new evidence that consistent with the NFLPA – NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) they could suspend this player consistent with the new domestic violence guidelines.

But in acting in a morally outraged fashion – which was also bad public relations, since it was the NFL itself which had initially treated this as if it was a much smaller deal – the NFL, and the Ravens, at least in part, helped create the very same moral outrage that is calling for Goodell’s job as commissioner now.

And by acting in this way, the NFL also created a lot of hoopla, public outcry, and deep skepticism over why the NFL had not seen the video.

In other words, if the video is that big a deal that the NFL, apology in the interim or not, went from giving a two game suspension to all but banishing Ray from the league (by both the NFL and his now former team) within hours of it surfacing – though of course in foresight it could not have known this – why didn’t the NFL look at it before?

The NFL, by its reaction, either created or helped to intensify the somewhat erroneous impression that it had erred terribly or even engaged in some sort of wrong doing by not somehow getting the videotape instead of relying upon the court system’s findings, Ray and Janay’s statements, Janay the victim’s strongly expressed wishes, and Ray’s prior excellent record in the matter.

The NFL, more consistently with the actual facts, and with respect to the video, could have stated: “Those are essentially the facts as we know them, but the video does show a bit more aggression and directness. And as we initially stated, we initially erred in this matter in handing out only a two game suspension. But this extra aggression provides materially new evidence to set aside our initial suspension term under the CBA, and instead now be guided by the new policy guidelines we have established, which suggests a 6 game suspension for the first time offense.” While it would not have been perfect – the NFL had botched this from the start after all – it would not have made it considerably worse, as the response that they did choose, instead very likely did.

The rationale for moving to the new policy and six game suspension is that there was reason in hindsight to have seen the video; the NFL had acknowledged the mistake and couldn’t really change what they had done under the CBA; but now that the video  had surfaced showing new evidence, the NFL could arguably do so. And more importantly, the NFL could do so without adding to the hysteria by acting morally outraged and hysterical themselves, and only making the NFL look far, far worse in the process, for then “not having gotten this tape in the first place” if in fact it is that outrageously different that the NFL had to suddenly react this powerfully and quickly upon seeing it, as if it was all new information.

What has been created by all of this is a scandal of major proportions. One that, while the incident between Ray and his then fiance is despicable, as are all such incidents – and which, among many far worse incidents and even patterns, are all too common – really may not be that scandalous.

And as a result, the outrage toward the NFL is palpable.

On Friday Morning, Philadelphia Eagles Center Jason Kelce appeared on a morning radio talk show, and stated:

“If they would have just came out and said, ‘you know what we had a wrong—we made a wrong decision, we should have suspended him for longer, this is something that we mishandled,’ I would have had a lot more respect for the NFL than what they’re doing now, which seems like they are just backtracking and trying to save face in front of the fans and it’s clear as day, I think to me, they’re lying and misleading people.”

That is what the NFL did – that is, say that that they were wrong. Then, after the video came out – which is apparently when Kelce is thus talking about – the NFL did not do this: instead, the NFL acted near hysterically, and fueled, rather than mitigated, further outrage over the video, by, ironically, taking an even stronger, but seemingly knee jerk, response to it; and by doing so making the video the end all be all of the story, rather than the mild addition or clarification to the story that it really was.

Thus causing public outrage to grow more.

Now a clever but in some ways sensationalist and misleading Cover Girl “Put Your Game Face On” image has circulated the country. Funny and apt if it is part metaphor for the black eye that the NFL has given itself, not quite so funny and perhaps even misleading if it is claiming that the NFL holds its players to certain standards but yet is largely indifferent to domestic violence, or that the problem of domestic violence is rampant in the NFL as compared with the rest of society.

Only adding even further to the mess, a copy of the video, which is in fact security camera footage from inside the elevator, was also claimed to have been delivered to the NFL by an anonymous law enforcement official months earlier. The anonymous source also played a recording for the members of the Associated Press of a female voice, reportedly from an NFL office number, leaving a voice mail confirming receipt and viewing of the video on her part; although there are not a lot of details available, and apparently the date of the voice mail itself pre-dates the given date of the video delivery by a couple of months. (Though that could just be a clerical mistake.)  The commissioner claims he never saw it or was made aware of it.

To top it all off, the NFL has also initiated an investigation to be overseen by two of its owners, John Mara of the New York Giants and Art Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers, and to be conducted by a former head of the FBI, Robert Mueller.

Mueller may be competent, but it’s not clear that a former director of the FBI is needed here to simply uncover if any of the key players – Goodell or his main advisers – was made aware of a recording allegedly sent to the NFL’s offices. Or of how the NFL otherwise handled the matter.

An “investigation” often creates the patina of wrong doing, as opposed to here, a group of 32 team owners who are rightly concerned with how this was handled and over what perhaps happened to that recording (if it is real) and who is responsible, and who simply want to find out what happened; to both correct errors and improve how things are handled, and, tell the public.

On top of this, electing to have a former “Director of the FBI” head this investigation, which makes a solid sounding headline that, in our world of short sound bite twitter type feeds, often comprises the majority of the story, and which was repeated millions of times on article links, twitter feeds and article headlines, was yet another mistake by the NFL. Here’s why.

So as Al Capone the notorious gangster – upon whom prosecutors could never pin anything related to his most nefarious activities – was finally convicted for an otherwise less enforced but technically legitimate law against tax evasions, Roger Goodell, albeit by a far more metaphoric, highly subjective, and exaggerated comparison, may – if public opinion stays the same and public opinion is to have its way – be ousted over this incident.

Goodell, who very subjectively speaking, and as a matter of pure opinion, has been an over-zealous commissioner who has been pushing hard to dilute the league’s playoffs with even more teams (as if 12 out of 32, well more than a third, aren’t enough) and also lose most of the meaning of playoff byes and largely undermine the most the most brilliant playoff structure in all of professional sports; who constantly seems to support rule changes that favor the offense over the defense (great for many fans, not as great for those who like to see a good balance between offense and defense, who like to see each score stay more relevant, who like to see good defense and the defense play as large of a role as the offense, or who like good football game strategy beyond simple Xs and Os and teams repeatedly marching up and down the field hardly impeded by defensive backs practically not allowed to breathe heavy on wide receivers): and who, ironically, often rules with a heavy moral hand (just not heavy enough, ironically, this past summer for a simple domestic violence case); and, as many NFL players are apt to suggest, just a very heavy hand in general.

Based upon the facts as they exist so far, however, much as in my own biased and perhaps unfair personal opinion I would like to see a new commissioner (though I am starting to re think that upon seeing one of the names that has been far more widely mentioned than any other), and as unpopular as it is to suggest right now, it is not at all clear that the current or even likely facts of this incident warrant the dismissal of Goodell.

He and the NFL botched this initially. But they ultimately gave the involved player a longer suspension than is really warranted under the new, even stronger domestic violence policy; and all the outrage from the visuals of the video aside, gave him a suspension that is also probably longer than is really warranted for – again, not a defendant in our court system, but an NFL player – for a one time first time offense which, fast as it was, consisted of one hit, with his fiance and now wife pleading to let him play, with an exemplary record and complete contrition and accountability afterward.

What Goodell and the NFL have repeatedly botched here is something the NFL has been very good at: The public relations aspect. This has made the entire matter look worse than it is. And with the immediate indefinite suspension of Ray to “make up for” the initial tepid handling, by some views exhibited that same moral high handedness; rather than a more measured consistent approach that wouldn’t have served to falsely widen the perception gap between what actually existed or was “known,” pre and post the surfacing of that video, suggested above.

As did perhaps the Baltimore Ravens as well. I am a fan of owner Steve Bisciotti. (And Ozzie Newsome, and their head coach, John Harbaugh.) But to jump from thinking a two game suspension is acceptable, to outright cutting the player, while the league all but simultaneously suspends him indefinitely, on the facts as they generally seem to have existed before and after the video surfaced, is a bit much. Maybe the suspension was to “buy time.” But another way to buy time is to not respond in a few hours to something that either didn’t add much, and thus didn’t provide much to respond to, or was a major revelation on top of an already complex situation.

The new NFL domestic violence policy calls for six games for a first time offense, which this incident represents. It is also a standard case. On the very negative side, it involved a very hard blow. But on the mitigating side, and not to diminish that first very disturbing fact, it was one punch; they were both very drunk; she does fully support him, and perhaps more importantly as the victim and with no apparent evidence of past abuse deserves some benefit of the doubt here; and his record before and after the incident was strong.

And unless the argument is that “this” incident of domestic violence warrants something higher than the current policy guideline – which would call into question the policy itself since many cases are worse- it seems that by the NFL’s initial mishandling, Ray (so far) wound up getting a far more egregious suspension than he ever would have under the new stronger domestic violence policy. And it seems everyone loses here. The Ravens (presumably, if they otherwise did not want to release him), the public, the fans, the NFL, and Ray and Janay.

If it turns out Goodell was made aware of the tape and has lied about it (it’s going out on a limb to make predictions, but I predict that is not the case, and it would be quite a surprise if it is),  then of course, although it is the owners call, he should be let go because he won’t be trusted as commissioner any more by the public, by the players, or by the owners.

And that is where out story will end. If not, it will end where it does – or at least this part of it – upon the finding of the investigation, and the outcome of the appeal that Ray is allegedly planning to contest the league’s indefinite suspension of him.

Ray’s been made into a bit of a pariah, but he should appeal. His suspension should have been six games. While there is a disturbing pattern of “battered wife” syndrome as well as abuse victim sometimes enabling their abusers by defending them or not really acknowledging their actions, to leap to that conclusion in this case is premature, and at this point apparently not supportable.

While his now wife’s support of him may be questionable in light of even that one time incident of behavior, the fact that it was a one time incident and that Ray has been granted Pre-Trial Intervention by the courts, is undergoing counseling, and that she has known him and been friends with him since high school, means that her wishes in this matter have to be respected and taken into consideration as well. That Goodell did this initially is at least supportable. Unless of course the league thought he hit her hard enough to clearly knock her down and hit something and get knocked out (just what the video shows) in which case the 6 game suspension is clearly appropriate.

And had the league just done this, even after the video came out – and clearly acknowledged its mistakes and revealed what extra information the video added, and suggested that in hindsight it should have made the suspension decision conditional upon getting a copy of the video (as well as explaining why it didn’t and acknowledging any mistakes there), the league probably wouldn’t have quite this black of an eye:

“Investigating the Investigators” in the Ray Rice Case – and What the NFL Should Have Done

Several things seem to be lost in the NFL Ray Rice brouhaha. One is that the NFL is under no obligation to punish its players for illegal behavior they engage in as members of society. We have a legal system for that. Additionally, most employers often don’t add in additional employment related punishment, as the NFL does.

The NFL may want there to be serious NFL ramifications for its players for illegal off the field behavior, for various reasons; including the integrity and process of games, as well as the image of the league. And since the NFL exists because of its fans (and also indirectly gets support from multiple municipalities for some of its individual teams’ stadiums, and has become a semi iconic sports/cultural feature of American society for many), it has chosen to do so as a standard part of its policy, and its agreement with the National Football League Players Association. (“NFLPA”)

But if the NFL “botches” a suspension of Ray Rice for a one time incident of domestic violence – aside from any separate issues (which always apply in business and life) of contractual breach (here, for example, with the NFL players association, or NFLPA), or legal impropriety – it has engaged in no “wrong doing.” Just, perhaps – via opinion – “mistake,” or egregious mistake.

Mistake – even awfully handled ones such as here – and wrong doing are two very different things. The only accountability for the NFL for “mistakes” in judgment and handling is to its fans of the league, and to the NFL owners (or, if any owners are involved in said mistake, those NFL owners not involved, as the case may be.)  Not to an independent counsel, or other body.

But the NFL, and the owners of each team, who the NFL organization employees work for (this includes commissioner Roger Goodell, even though he has the power to actually fine and suspend his “bosses, as he just did in the case of Colts owner Jim Irsay), might want to know what the mistakes made were, and why they were made – and even how Goodell handled it on the inside. They might particularly want to know when there is such a large public outcry over the issue.

For this reason the NFL owners have initiated an “investigation into the Ray Rice domestic violence investigation”; to find out what was known, and by whom, and when, and what happened to a video recording of inside the elevator footage allegedly sent to NFL’ headquarters, and which apparently produced a confirmed voice mail of receipt and viewing by an unnamed NFL employee.

The NFL didn’t have to initiate any such investigation. And the fact that it did doesn’t mean the NFL did anything “wrong.” Rice did something wrong here. He knows that. And most of us have now seen it. On Camera.

But the NFL, in general, also doesn’t have to suspend someone (or worse) for off the field and non team related behavior. However, given the NFL’s policy of requiring its players to engage in conduct that does not give the league a public “black eye,” and the tricky argument by many that sports figures have disproportionate role model influence, as a practical matter the league probably should have something along the lines of the policy they do; which would involve a suspension of some games even for a first time incident of domestic violence, as part of a no tolerance policy toward it.

And because of the integrity of the brand, and the hot button sensitivity on this issue of domestic violence (particularly, as it seems, when it is viewed), the league was probably well served to initiate an investigation by someone outside of the NFL, to look at how this particular situation was handled – and also provide guidance to the owners on this matter, including perhaps how their commissioner handled it.

But the fact that said independent investigation is being led by none other than a former FBI Director likely creates an inadvertent, and even perhaps sub conscious yet erroneous impression that the NFL or even Goodell did something “wrong” here. The term FBI and investigation over the NFL in the same sentence can’t help but impart this impression, even if largely unrecognized.

The NFL is not our legal system. And while Goodell in theory could have dissembled (or another employee could have engaged in actions regarding the videotape that the owners would not condone, and that the public, in response to such an image conscious league, would be upset with), the NFL can not have engaged in wrong doing in terms of arriving at a subjective length of game suspension for a player for off the field and non team related behavior:

That is, the relevant parties at the NFL, including the commissioner, could have viewed the video, and said “that looks horrible, Ray,” Ray responded, “I was silly drunk and I acted like an animal and I am sick to my stomach over this, I have never hit her before, never will again,” Janay Palmer (now Janay Rice) could have piped in “I really pushed him, saying nasty things and spit in his face, I am sick he did this, but I forgive him, he deserves another chance,” and the NFL responded “Ray, you have an exemplary record and contingent upon you staying in counseling for X period of time and (some sort of community service) we are only going to suspend you for two games. Don’t let us down – another even very minor such incident will likely bring a year long ban or more.”

The public might have been annoyed or even, in some cases, disgusted with the NFL, but the NFL’s policy towards its players off the field and non team related behavior, ultimately, is voluntary.

The County Prosecutor in the original case against Rice, along with the police involved saw the entire inside the elevator video that the rest of the country and the NFL apparently had not seen until a few days ago.

The NFL’s recent claims aside, this is a video that didn’t really change the underlying facts as known by the public (Rice hit fiance hard enough for her to fall and get knocked out briefly) but may have changed them as “known” by the NFL (Rice and Janay exchanged blows, he slapped her she was tipsy anyway and easily fell, and her head hit and she got knocked out), despite the fact that the original police complaint was more in line with the public’s knowledge.

Yet despite this fact that the video showed what was largely perceived (apparently, outside of the NFL) in the matter – i.e., Rice hitting her once quickly, her falling and hitting her head – the publication of the video caused a large increase in the public’s outcry. An outcry that was in turn likely heightened further by Commissioner Roger Goodell’s excuse making type statement in response, that “we didn’t see the video.” Rather than something like: “we know the prosecutor, judge and police all saw the video; in hindsight we probably should have insisted on it anyway to give us a clearer picture of what Rice, and his then fiance Janay, who were both very drunk at the time of the incident, later described to us, and despite the fact that we wanted to respect the victim Janay’s wishes, and that Ray has had an exemplary record up until this point, and that since the police, the prosecutor, and the Judge involved all saw the video, and we rely upon them in such matters, we initially if prematurely and in this case mistakenly elected to do so here.”

Jim McClain, the actual prosecutor in the case, and perhaps referring to what also seems to be somewhat lost in all of this, had this key piece of insight on the matter:

“I’m very glad that people are repulsed by the video, because this type of violence is an ugly, ugly thing. But the fact that this assault was on video makes it no more nor any less ugly than those hundreds of domestic violence situations where similar violence was inflicted on a victim and it’s not captured on videotape. Reality is reality whether it’s captured on videotape or not. And the reality of violence is that it is always ugly.”

But it has, unfortunately.

The NFL maintains that Rice, with Janay Rice (then Janay Palmer) by his side, peddled a softer story than is shown by the inside elevator footage publicly released several days ago – yet since they were both heavily drunk Ray’s story is not all that far from what most people with a foggy memory after an awful incident would likely remember and relate. (Though on the other hand it is possible that Ray was shown the video, and if so that would have “crystallized” his memory.) And there was some outcry after the initial two game suspension was handed out, based on the facts that were perceived by the public – Rice hit his then fiance hard enough to cause her to fall and get temporarily knocked out.

Yet it seems that the video has played a far larger role in the case than the actual facts; and perhaps highlights the idea that what we know of in theory, rather than can “feel,” or see in a way that allows us to “feel” – as did a fairly graphic elevator video that was spun to replay the critical scene multiple times over in repeated succession – doesn’t seem to have nearly the same sense of connection and effect, and that we too quickly dismiss what we can’t see, but otherwise “know,” and perhaps overly focus, as we have obsessively over this video, on what we can.

Having a “former FBI Director” direct the “investigation,” is likely only furthering this, and adding to the national soap opera that is very likely quite different from a measured attempt to stem actual, often unseen, or non videotaped domestic violence; and what prosecutor Jim McClain, was referring to, when he all but stated that the video didn’t make any real difference.

Whether McClain is right or wrong on these points – although he probably knows Atlantic County criminal courts as well as anybody – is a matter of opinion:

“‘People need to understand, the choice was not PTI [Pre-Trial Intervention] versus five years’ state prison….The parameters as they existed were: Is this a PTI case or a probation case?” McClain said the video would have been enough evidence against Rice to get a conviction at trial, even without Palmer’s cooperation. But all that would have come after the headlines and the daily coverage would be a probationary sentence, ‘and it’s not fair to the victim to put her through that for [something no better than the current outcome].‘”

But McClain was almost assuredly not wrong on the bigger issue of domestic violence that goes largely hidden, and unseen. Bringing attention to the issue of domestic violence is fine; mocking the NFL a little is probably fine too; but the zeal against the NFL, as if the NFL is the bad player in all of this, is probably misplaced. As is very likely the current outcome.

The NFL recently changed its domestic violence offense guidelines to a six game suspension for a first time offense, and a ban for a second.  Whether inflexible doctrine that doesn’t allow for individual circumstances, response of the victim, and commitment to and likely chance of success in ongoing counseling is a good idea or not, the release of the video tape was a perfect opportunity to “get it right.”

To wit:

“We initially dropped the ball in this matter. We relied upon the fact that the investigating county police department and prosecutor, if not presiding judge, had viewed the video, the statements by an extremely contrite Ray and his fiance saying (wrongly, but relevantly) that she was “partly” to blame, and Ray’s exemplary record prior to, and response since, this drunken event. However, the video shows the blow to be more direct and severe than we had realized, and any initial physical touching by Janay to be much milder than we had realized, and we consider it sufficient new information to correct this under the newer domestic violence policy guidelines, and correctly suspend Ray for a total of the six games now called for. We have spoken with Ray regarding this new, more clear information and he fully understands, and agrees it is fair.”

(Not that Rice would have a choice; but it sounds good, and helps head off the issue – already present now anyway, and in a bigger way – of altering his league punishment after the fact.)

The NFL and the issue probably would have been better served by some sort of statement along those lines. Instead of the super swift “Drop Ray like a hot potato” response of the NFL and the Ravens – which in turn only furthered the impression that this video was wildly new, rather than a confirmation, clarification on, and perhaps amplification of what was already known. And which also implicitly made it seem like the fact that the NFL had not seen this video or insisted upon it earlier was some sort of major scandal, when it was not.

There would likely still have been plenty of outcry, sure; but it would have been a fraction of the present focus on and bad feelings over the issue; the league likely wouldn’t have nearly the black eye that it does; and Goodell wouldn’t look nearly as bad. And if the NFL owners still wanted to know why that video wasn’t looked at initially, or why it was handled the way it was, they still could have conducted an investigation into it.

All would be (much) better, and Rice wouldn’t have had what probably would have been a six game suspension originally (and despite what the NFL and the Ravens, joining in at breakneck speed with the overly kinesthetic response of the public to a video that really didn’t alter the likely facts very relevantly at all, by their actions now weakly imply) turn into this debacle of indefinite suspension and release from his team, and even partial pariah-ship, with commenters all over the Internet often referring to him as if he is a serial drunken wife beater.

There are plenty of those out there, and perhaps, though the NFL’s seemingly repeated botching of this matter didn’t help, the focus should be more on them, and less on Ray.

Giants Elect to Take Worse Down and Distance Option, Worse Field Position, Because?

The Giants got walloped 35-14 on MNF last night, by a Detroit Lions team that in the first half alone had more than twice as many defensive penalty yards assessed against it, than the entire Giants offense amassed in the first half.

But, when it came to the issue of defensive penalties, the Giants also made a strategic call that is mind-boggling; illustrating once again that NFL teams often don’t recognize the structural aspects of the game, and how to make the correct underlying strategic calls as a result.

If a team on offense has the option to take or refuse a penalty, it normally comes down to two things.  First, the down and distance situation – which of the two down and distance situations will be more favorable for the team?

The second is field position. Which will put them in a better position on the field? Normally, this means closer to their opponent’s end zone, or to field goal range.

Usually these two factors are in opposition to each other. Do you take the best down and distance option and sacrifice a little bit of field position, or vice versa?

If both of these factors are more favorable, there is no decision to make, unless there is some other very unusual factor present. The team simply makes the election that improves both of these things over the opposite choice, rather than the election that worsens both of these things over the opposite choice

It would be like a business that needs as many routers as possible being offered 10,000 routers for 1.4 million dollars. Or 8000 routers for 1.6 million dollars.  Again, there is no decision to make:

“Seriously? For $200,000 less, we get 2000 more routers? Great!”

Against the Lions last night, the Giants, with plenty of time to make the decision, took the football equivalent of less product, for more money:  “Seriously, we get better overall field position and a better down and distance to go situation? No thanks!!” They purposefully elected to give up both the better down and distance situation, and the better field position. For nothing else in return.

In other words, they made a nonsensical decision.

The score was 14-7 Detroit. New York had a 1st and 10 at the Lions 49 yard line, 1:29 was left in the 1st quarter.  Out of the shotgun, quarterback Eli Manning hit Rueben Randle for about 7 1/2 yards, bringing up a 2nd and a short 3. Except that a penalty, that carries with it an automatic first down if the penalty is accepted, was called. Bringing up, in theory at least, a “decision.”

Question number one. What is better for a team.  2nd and 2 1/2 yards, or 1st and 10?

It’s not even close.  A team’s equity – their chances of picking up a first down and moving the chains – is higher in the first instance, by a wide margin.

This has been analyzed to death. But comparing a 1st and 10 to a 2nd and 3 is so lopsided, it is pointless to go into detail. Nor does any real statistical analysis need to be done it is so lopsided. Bluntly put, it is simply far easier for a team – and thus far far more likely to occur – to gain 3 (or here, 2 1/2) yards on 2 plays – an average of 1 1/2 yards per play – than it is for a team to gain 10 yards on 3 plays – an average of 3.3 yards per play.

(Not only that, but with a 2nd and short 3 around the Detroit 42 yard line, unless they moved backward, the Giants would have likely had 3 more plays, not 2, to make the first down, since it would have been 4th and short near the Lions 40 yard line.)

So, obviously, if a penalty is called on the play, there is no decision here. You take the play…..

Unless….. unless the penalty yardage gives you more total yardage, and moves you even closer to field goal range and your opponent’s end zone.  For instance, a personal foul call that gives the Giants a 1st and 10 instead of a 2nd and 2 1/2, but gives them 15 total yards instead of just 7 1/2, and moves then down to around the Lions 34 instead of around the 42.

In this instance, the Lions’ penalty was not for 15 yards, but was a 5 yard, and automatic first down, illegal use of hands penalty. It was for less yardage than the Giants had gained on the play. And by accepting it the Giants would be in a far less favorable down and distance situation – 1st and 10 – than they would be – 2nd and 2 1/2 – by not accepting it.  And by accepting it, the Giants also lost total yardage, as they were only awarded 5 yards total, not 7 1/2.

By electing the option that harmed the Giants (relative to the opposite election) in both ways that it had any relevant affect, the Giants made a decision that, strategically, couldn’t have been any worse.

In total impact on the game, it is possible for “worse” decisions to be made; but from a pure decision making standpoint, it’s not. The Giants said “yes, we choose to have a less favorable down and distance situation, and a less favorable field position.” And committed the football equivalent of purposefully spending more money, for a smaller amount of product that they need in nearly endless supply.  In essence, saying to the selling company (or in this case, the referee, metaphorically), “no, even though we need it, leave some of the product in the truck, and also please charge us more total money.”

Perhaps the Giants did not realize that 2nd and short is far more favorable than 1st and 10. Which again, gets back to the original point. (Though more subtle, the second opening Monday Night Football game also involved multiple if more abstract strategic mistakes, as part of yet another San Diego Chargers 4th quarter meltdown to lose a large lead on MNF, and blow the game, for the 3rd year in a row.)

Maybe some NFL teams need savvy game strategists, because there is simply too much else going on; and, although it invariably plays a large role in the game, objective analytical strategic situational assessment involves a very different skill set from the rest of football.  And not only has it not kept up with the rest of football, it isn’t even being practiced in the same ball park – and sometimes even the same area code – as the professionalism/competence/expertise exhibited when it comes to so many other aspects of the game.

Six Late Game Screwups that Led to (Yet Another) Chargers late game Monday Night Meltdown Loss

Catching a football is not a difficult athletic act. And it should be practiced in a way that makes it second nature among the country’s best players. For some reason though, there are almost as many drops of footballs in the NFL – the best of the best of the best – as there are in a normal peewee league season between good local players.

Two of the six main late game Chargers mistakes involved such drops.

The first mistake came with 2:13 left in the third quarter. On 1st and 10 from their own 26 yard line, trailing 17-6, Carson Palmer threw deep to just past midfield.  Safety Marcus Gilchrist jumped up, and the ball hit him in his hands right in front of his chest. He had RAC (or, in this case, “return RAC,” or “return run after the catch”) room. Probably one first down after what should have been an easy pick would have put the Chargers into solid field goal range, for the full two TD lead.

Gilchrist dropped the ball.

Mistake Number 2: The value of timeouts near the conclusion of football games, as a means to radically control the clock in the waning seconds when it matters most, is vastly underestimated in the NFL.  On 2nd and 13 with 9:29 left in the 4th quarter, Rivers threw deep to Eddie Royal, on a play where Royal looked well covered, and the pass had little chance of success. Though hard to adjust for on the fly during the course of a play, this was also a slight strategic mistake in terms of the ultimate play attempt.  While any score here is good, a score that uses up some clock time while simultaneously strengthening a team’s measly 5 point lead, is strategically superior, unless the long pass has a decent chance. But trying a very low probability tight coverage deep throw in this situation, that makes it a large long shot between the large distance and the extremely tight coverage – rather than a far higher probability, move the chains forward toward the opponent’s end zone, type of play – is ill advised.

In any event, the long pass went comfortably incomplete, bringing up 3rd and 13.

The Cardinals blitzed, successfully, at that, and Rivers, moving backwards quickly, and just before getting pummeled, threw off his back foot, slightly under-throwing an open Antonio Gates down the left sideline; but not by much, and Gates reeled it in for a 34 yard gain. It was a great play by Rivers under heavy pressure, and an example of why he is clearly one of the better starting QBs in the league.

But before the snap, for their second major mistake that contributed to yet another MNF loss that shouldn’t have happened, the Chargers wasted one of their three timeouts, calling it, for one reason or another. (None of which matter, frankly, since in a close game, the option to extend the game by multiple plays if necessary at the end is far more valuable by this point, whatever the problem the Chargers thought they faced at the moment.)

The completed pass to Gates put San Diego on the Cardinals 31 yard line. The key thing here, up by 5 points, 17-12, is to at least get a field goal out of it. This alone will increase their winning percentage by about 300% overall. In other words, down by 5, if the Cardinals score that last TD, and it is the last score of the game, they will win every time. Down by 8, the Cardinals will only win about 1 out of every 4 times, since they must still make the two point conversion (roughly a 50% probability) and must still win in overtime (roughly a 50% probability).

The Chargers had not been running the ball well in the second half, but their first call was a run up the middle to Danny Whitehead: Iffy call, but, arguably, reasonable. On 2nd and 9, making the exact same play call again, was not reasonable.  But, for mistake number 3, it is what the Chargers did.

Rivers is a good QB. The goal on 2nd down should have been to pick up the 1st down, not go into a shell as the Chargers have done so often late in games.  If a pass for a 1st down was not open, then Rivers can check down to a second or third option for a shorter throw, and perhaps a 4 or 5 yard pickup, give or take, depending on RAC.

Sure, a pass attempt versus a second vanilla run right up the middle might go incomplete. But in that area of the field on the edge of field goal range, leading by less than one full score, it was critical to keep control of the ball and try to make it a 11 or 13 point game (with the TD and two point conversion try), if they could; or at least increase their chances greatly by making it an 8 point game if they could not score the TD.

Given how poorly the Charters were running the ball, a measly run up the middle by Whitehead – not even their best runner – after the exact same play, not surprisingly, failed to work a moment earlier, was playing like a turtle with its head in the sand – something which the Chargers, in terms of game strategy (certainly not Rivers or the players) do a lot late in games.

The second run up the middle in a row by Whitehead failed as well, bringing up a 3rd and 8.

Sure, the play could have worked and gained 4 yards or so, giving them a 3rd and 4 and putting them at the 26 or something similar, and facing a 44 yard or less field goal attempt if nary another yard more was gained. But it was over cautious when the game was far from a lock; and lessened their chances of moving the ball and chains forward enough to make either the field goal or the TD score more likely. It is a subjective analysis, but it was lame enough to qualify as mistake number 3.

Mistake number 4 was by Rivers, and moves back to the “not on purpose” category.(Mistakes 2 and 3, the early call/waste of the first timeout, and the lame turtle head back in the shell vanilla play call at a critical point in the game at a critical point on the field, were purposeful mistakes.) It was a botched snap.

Long time center Stalwart Nick Hardwick had bagged football in the 9th grade, focusing on wrestling instead.  At Purdue, which he attended on an ROTC scholarship, he also didn’t play his first two seasons, then joined the team as a walk on after Drew Brees (drafted later that spring by the Chargers with the 30th pick overall) inspiringly led the Boilermakers to the 2001 Rose Bowl. Hardwick quickly excelled, and was chosen by the Chargers with the 66th overall pick in the 2004 draft, 62 spots behind teammate Philip Rivers, who was drafted 4th overall by the Giants, and quickly traded to the Chargers, who had drafted an obstinate Eli Manning no. 1 overall (and who insisted he would not play for the Chargers.)

Hardwick started almost every game his rookie year, and while he has missed a few games here and there (most notably in 2009 where he missed most of the season due to an ankle injury that almost ended his career), he has been the Chargers starting center ever since he was drafted in 2004, and the current starting center, Jason Ball, held out. Hardwick also hasn’t missed a game in the four seasons since 2009.

Early in this game against the Cardinals, he left the game with an ankle injury. (No word yet on whether it’s the same ankle he badly injured badly in ’09.) The Chargers back up center is Rich Ohrnberger.  On 3rd and 8 from the Cardinals 29 yard line, still with a 17-12 lead, 7:34 remaining in the game, and from the shotgun – and, perhaps because Rivers wasn’t as used to getting the snap from Ohrnberger, perhaps not – Rivers either outright botched the snap, or wasn’t ready for it, and it deflected off his hands and was ultimately (if barely) covered up by a scrambling Rivers back at the 43 yard line, for a 14 yard loss. This brought up 4th and 22, and put the Chargers completely out of field goal range.

The fifth mistake was another one of both game and time management. After starting out at their 9 yard line with 6:50 to go after the Chargers punted from the Cardinals 43, the Cardinals drove 91 yards for a TD, failed on their 2 point conversion try, and left the Chargers, who after the kickoff had 2:25 left, and trailed by 1, 18-17, with far too much time. (This was still much better, by the Cardinals however, than not scoring at all.) Rivers hit on 2 passes in a row, bringing up a 2nd and 2 from the Chargers 40 yard line at the two minute warning. Two quick incompletes brought up 4th and 2 with 1:53 left on the clock.

Here, with plenty of time after the incompletion to call a play and get set up and adjust at the line of scrimmage, the Chargers nevertheless failed to do so. And, to avoid an automatic 5 yard loss on a delay of game penalty, and also turn a manageable 4th and 2 into a challenging 4th and 7, someone from the sidelines managed to just call a timeout as the ball was snapped with zero seconds on the play clock.  This brought the Chargers down to only 1 timeout remaining; which meant, along with their earlier timeout expenditure, that if they got stopped here, instead of having a still excellent chance in the game if they could stop their opponents on an ensuing 3 and out, they would essentially have no chance left in the game.

Mistake number six came on that ensuing play.  Larry Foote, who but for the year 2009 (when he was with the Lions) was a Pittsburgh Steeler from 2002 through 2013, planted his own foot as Rivers threw, threw his hand up and beautifully timed the throw, deflecting it heavily near the line of scrimmage.

Luckily for the Chargers, the ball wobbled right into wide receiver Keenan Allen’s hands just past the short first down maker.  Unfortunately for the Chargers, Allen dropped the ball.

The Cardinals took over with 1:49 left. San Diego had one timeout left. If the Chargers still had their remaining three timeouts, a stop on three plays followed thus by an inevitable Cardinals punt would have given them the ball back with about a minute and twenty seconds or more remaining after the punt. Which, for a field goal drive, is more than enough time. Particularly with Rivers at QB.

Even if they only had two timeouts left, albeit it would have been much harder, the Chargers still would have had an outside shot, getting the ball back with around 45-47 seconds or so left. But with only one timeout left, all they could do was stop the clock after the Cardinals first play, which they did.

The Cardinals snapped their second down play at 1:43. And with the Chargers unable to stop the clock, snapped 3rd down with 56 seconds remaining. This would take the clock down to about 11 or 12 seconds before they punted, giving the Chargers time for maybe one last miracle type attempt play, from deep in their own end of the field. (As if happens, the Cardinals picked up the first down on their third down play; but without the situation being present, if the Chargers had been playing for the game, rather than all but going through the motions, no one can say what the outcome would have been.)

It was really at least seven critical, major, mistakes, but the 7th was negated by a fortuitous penalty.  On 3rd and 8 from their own 33 yard line, leading now by only 5 after the Cardinal TD and failed two point conversion attempt, and with 10:33 on the clock, Rivers threw a pick to Safety Tony Jefferson. A defensive holding call on the Cardinals however made it first down for the Chargers, out at their own 38, instead of Cardinals ball just outside the San Diego 40 yard line. (This was followed by a three yard loss, the ensuing long incomplete to a well covered receiver deep up the middle, the long pass off Rivers’ back foot under heavy pressure to Antonio Gates, the two runs for a yard apiece, and the botched snap for the 14 yard loss, as described above.)

Last year, to open the season for NFL’s Monday Night Football, the Chargers blew a 21 point lead to lose to the Houston Texans (who would then win a close game in week 2, then go on to lose the next 14 games in a row en route to the number one pick in this past spring’s NFL draft).

The year before that, the Chargers also lost in a Monday Night Football game for the ages. A game – in fact, a “half” – which really marked the beginning of a new, if late, offensive dynasty for the Broncos, as it finally all came together with Peyton Manning at the helm. (With the Broncos, including that game itself, going 25-3 in the regular season since then up until this point and including Sunday’s 31-24 win over the Colts. And, setting all kinds of records the following year – 2013 – in the process, with Manning, at age 37, even throwing 55 regular season TD passes, shattering Tom Brady’s single season TD passing record by 5.)

For to start out the second half of that infamous game, the Broncos trailed the Chargers 24 -0. And, rather remarkably won the game by 11 points, 35-24.

At least the Chargers blown leads – 24 points in 2012, 21 points in 2013, and 11 points in 2014 – on Monday Night Football Games are getting smaller. But from a basics standpoint, last night’s loss might have been the worst of all, as the Chargers made multiple, if largely overlooked, strategic mistakes, and a multitude of various types of errors, including a few of the most common, but still, seemingly, most frustrating of all; since it involves an action that, however hard it is to be an NFL player, and be among the best of the best, is a fairly easy athletic act – and one that is yet so important to the outcomes of football games – simply catching a football that hits one square in the hands. And not dropping it.

 

Ten Football Takeaways (and one tank) From NFL Opening Night Football – Packers at Seahawks

1.  None of the last nine winning Super Bowl teams repeated as champs the following year. (The New England Patriots did it last, over the 2003 and 2004 seasons.) Only one of the nine, the ’04 Patriots, even won a playoff game the following year.

It’s not a lock for Seattle to advance in the playoffs this year; they’re in a tough division, and lost multiple starters from last year’s squad. But after this season, that number is likely to jump to two with the hawks in 2014. They also have a good shot at repeating as champs, and becoming the first team to do so since, once again, the Patriots did it 10 years ago.

2. It’s no revelation:  Adding arguably one of the best players in the league to what may have already been the best team in the league, as the Seahawks also did before the start of last season, is a big deal. But it was a break for the rest of the league that wide receiver/all around player extraordinaire Percy Harvin would up missing almost the entire regular season last year after moving to Seattle. (Not enough of a break, as the Seahawks picked up the number 1 seed in the NFC anyway.)

Harvin showed what he could do in the Super Bowl, when the Harvin and the ‘hawks shredded the Broncos 43-8 last February in Super Bowl 48.  He had two runs out of the backfield for 45 yards, and a kick return for a TD, in that game. Harvin followed it up, some 7 months later, by shredding the Packers out of the backfield last night as well, for 41 yards on just 4 carries. (Adding 59 more through the air.)

If he can stay healthy, “Lord have Mercy we have Percy” Harvin’s play may help offset some of the losses from last year’s championship squad.

 

3. ‘Hawks offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell,  capitalizing on Russell Wilson’s super athleticism and body control, used Harvin, Marshawn lynch and Wilson brilliantly.  Several times he had Harvin cut in front with Marshawn also coming across, and with some adept sleight of hand and body language by Wilson, the Packers defense, and sometimes the cameramen, weren’t sure who had the ball.  At one point, even without Harvin in the picture, a read option fake to Marshawn worked so well that practically the entire Packers’ defense, the T.V. camera crew,  and thus almost everyone watching the game, keyed in on Lynch exploding up the middle, while Wilson practically trotted to his left and lobbed a pass to a ridiculously wide open Ricardo Lockette, who easily ran it in for the score.

 

4. Until “garbage time,” and despite the new rule changes that (sadly) prevent a defender from jamming a receiver even inside of 5 yards from the line of scrimmage, Packers receivers were not getting open.

Despite the loss of Brandon Browner (suspended for the first four games of the season, and also acquired by the New England Patriots), the Seattle secondary is good. Very good.

According to often loquacious Richard Sherman, after the Super Bowl the Seahawks, rather than focusing in on going to Disney, were like “okay, we do we play now?”  Attitude is almost everything in NFL football, and if that attitude carries over through this season, they will dominate.  If not, they probably won’t.

Last night  they were playing on a national stage to open the season and defend their title, against a team that some say could be a contender for the NFC title against them.  But, at least to open the season, it looked like they still had that attitude.

 

5. On the flip side of Packers receivers not getting open, the Packers may be a little weak at this position. There are many many good receivers in the NFL.  Great quarterbacks make good receivers very good.

And quarterback Aaron Rodgers makes good receivers very, very good.  But while they have some good players, the Packers receiving corps may be a little thin this year. At least for the championship contender caliber team they want to be. We’ll see.

 

6.   Marshawn “Beast Mode” Lynch (a social welfare major at Berkeley, incidentally), still plays hungry.  He ran for 110 yards and two TDs on 20 carries. Sometimes through large holes. But he also ran with authority and energy, and gained a lot of yardage after contact as well.  Lynch outplayed the Packer defense.

 

7.  Against the defending Super Bowl champs (a more defensive oriented team), the Packers Defensive line looked weak. The loss of Tackle B.J. Raji (a stalwart on the defensive line and former no 9 overall pick by the Packers),  for the entire season before it even began, didn’t help. But that D line, as of week 1, needs some.

Raji’s replacement, Letroy Guion, who was acquire in March from the Vikings, played his first six years there, appearing in 68 games (28 started over the past two seasons), with 90 tackles. On one play last night Guion half wrapped up Marshawn lynch behind the line of scrimmage, and fell off of him. That happens in the NFL. But it shouldn’t. If a player can get both arms around the waste, the tackle should be made. Guion had no tackles, no assists, for the game.

It would have been interesting to see how Thursday Night’s opening game would have played out, if Raji – the Packers best defensive lineman – were in the game. It looked like predictions that his presence would be missed, were accurate.

 

8.  It’s tough to be a starting  linebacker in the NFL, as the position requires more true versatility than any on the field.  The position also may still be under rated in importance, though over the last several years that has been changing. But last  night, Starting MLB Brad Jones for the Packers looked like he was more fit for a backup role.

I’m no Dom Capers (Packers defensive coordinator);  have been a fan of the flexibility of the 3-4 for many years; and think teams should expand outside of that with multiple formations. (As some teams, increasingly, do.)  But if Julius Peppers is really suited to play linebacker, the Packers should move back to a 4-3 and put Peppers on an outside linebacker spot.

Or they should simply switch to a 4-3 and put Peppers back at one of the defensive end spots. And mix up what they do – that way Peppers gets to actually play end, where he is probably better, more than Linebacker.  And while their D line looked weak, they reportedly have some depth there.

Ideally, the Packers would acquire an upgrade for Jones at linebacker, and use Jones as a solid backup.  Or perhaps Keep Jones in the middle,  flanked by only AJ Hawk and phenom Clay Matthews, for linebackers. (Or possibly put Jones on the right side with Hawk in the middle and Matthews remaining on the left).

No easy answers here, but on several plays Jones looked slow, with sub par tackling.  Part of the problem is of course that in the NFL proper tackling technique is not sufficiently practiced.  And it shows in games, where the most fundamental skill required to win football games – end a play and stop a player’s forward progress, and when need be for clock control and first down control, control where that players goes – is often botched.

 

9.  If Bryan Bulaga, who injured his knee and left the game in the second quarter, does not get (and stay) healthy and or the Packers don’t add some solid help for the right side of their offensive line or somehow get better there, they are not going to have much a shot to go very far; and Rodgers, who was sacked a league leading 51 times in 2012, will get pressured, a lot.

 

10.  The Packers, without some significant improvement, while they still might be the favorite to win the enigmatic NFC North this season again, are not legitimate contenders for the NFC crown this season.

 

11.   Aaron Rodgers pulling a tank for the SNL pump you up characters Hanz and Franz is one of the funniest T.V. commercials of all time:  “You don’t just lift dumbbells, you drink them.”

The Michael Sam Experiment

(Updated below)

Michael Sam, who plays defensive end, is the first “openly gay” NFL prospect or player.

Sam did not however spring a surprise on his team after being either drafted, making a roster, or earning a starting spot. All of these would have forced the issue a little more strongly, and perhaps helped make it passe – as presumably one’s sexual orientation should be – more quickly.

Instead Sam declared before the draft – perhaps a little boldly in one sense since there was and after the fact is a legitimate chance that his declaration would and did hurt his draft status,

But by declaring before the draft rather than after making a team, he avoided the possibility of having any team that selected him feel like they were misled.

Sexual “orientation” has nothing to do with play on the field. But guys do share locker rooms, showers, etc. The topic is also a huge social issue – and thus a major media issue as well. And since everyone knows there are gay players in the NFL (just not who, nor should it matter) the fact that players have all chosen to keep it quiet is revealing.

And it is also interesting to see what happens with the first player who openly declares it – particularly when the declaration was made before they have even made a roster.

But, interesting or not, there has been a LOT of media coverage, and some criticism of that coverage. And some of it has been a little questionable. ESPN’s reporting that Sam did not shower with the team, for example (and for which ESPN later apologized), may have been a little over the top, for instance. And, as with many issues, there has been an overly narrow and near constant focus on the issue, to the exclusion of many other newsworthy stories; until the next story of the moment comes around.

Yet the Sam declaration, the ensuing spring draft, and his attempt to make an NFL roster is a story line nearly fit for a dramatic T.V. series; and thus t is going to be covered. While NFL teams, on the other hand, usually want to avoid media issues that don’t focus on football, particularly if they can be seen as distracting.

For that reason, an NFL team may have felt that if someone was going to come out right after being drafted or after making a team’s official roster, they could just as easily have given the team a heads up before the draft instead, so that the team – right or wrong to view it as an issue this way – could determine to what extent they want to deal with it.

Thus while it would have also been bold of Sam to wait until after (and if) he made a roster to make his declaration – again to really force the issue – it could also be seen as the more deferential move to his possible future team to to not use them to pull such a surprise, but give notice in advance.

Yet some of the criticism directed at Sam was focused on this fact that he did not “wait” until after being drafted and making a team. But had he done that, the criticism of Sam would have undoubtedly been even higher.

Both “criticisms,” are valid: Sam could have boldly made the implicit point that it should not matter, and so declare after a team chose him. Or respect the team’s interest in knowing of the possible media scrutiny (as well as his own interest in subsequently making the team or engendering good will), in advance. Which means neither criticism really, is valid, since there is probably no right and no wrong answer.

---

What’s interesting is that in some ways, in the ensuing draft, Sam went to just about one of the worst team’s he could have gone to. The St. Louis Rams.

He made it to the final 58 players of the Rams however. But with four former first round picks and plenty of additional solid players on their defensive line (including, as it turns out, a potential great rookie free agent find in Ethan Westbrook) that team may have been the worst for Sam to go to in this spring’s draft.

Apart from the fact that head coach Jeff Fisher is in some ways a think outside of the box head coach – who also doesn’t seem to care too much what other people think, and who has seemed pretty good at keeping his team and players in line and is thus perhaps less likely to worry about ancillary controversies – it was a surprise, and it made little sense that Sam was drafted by the Rams, of all teams.

Namely, given the fact that out of all 32 teams in the NFL, the team that drafted the first openly gay player, a defensive lineman, probably had the best all around and deepest defensive line in the football.

In other words, from a pure football perspective, it would have made more sense if the Rams had been the last team to draft Sam, not the first. Yet here’s a Bleacher Report article from draft weekend explaining why Sam is a perfect fit for the Rams.

I don’t, and didn’t agree with the article: The most important thing for any player, openly gay or not, is to first make the team. And Sam’s shot at a team that was so strong at D line was simply weaker in St. Louis than with many other teams. Still, the article makes some good points.

And the fact that Sam made the final 58 players on this team and yet didn’t get picked up by any other team is suggestive of something going on. But there has been criticism of this view, based on the idea that Sam played well against other 3rd and 4th stringers, and that he was a late 7th round draft pick to begin with.

Sam’s ability to make a club is limited by the fact that he is not versatile, and isn’t really a special teams players. However, he was also projected to go higher in the draft – around the 4th round apparently –  and was probably only a 7th round pick because of his pre-draft declaration. And in the preseason. the consensus is he played better than expected. But playing against other players also struggling to make teams is what making a team – some team, somewhere – is about. That is, being one of the players among the later round picks, who plays well against like competition.

If this is all accurate – and it is hard to say that it is with certainty – then a player that is projected to go in the 4th round, but goes in the 7th, but plays better than “projected,” ought to make a roster, or at least practice squad, somewhere.

Although it is also hard to say for certain, Sam may have even made the roster of a team with arguably the best overall defensive line in the NFL -the Rams – had the Rams not made a good find in free agent rookie pickup Ethan Westbrook, who reportedly beat him out for the final spot. That is, Sam still almost made it to the final roster of a team deep at the position.

Thus for him to not land on another team with a weaker defensive line, or at least another team’s practice squad over final cut down weekend (last weekend) is probably not just attributable to the commonly declared idea that he was “a 7th round pick playing against scrubs who just did not show he was good enough.”

More likely – as evidenced by the fact that no NFL team even drafted him until there were only 8 picks remaining in the entire 2014 draft (no. 249, where the Rams, who also had the 250th pick, chose Sam, out of 256 total) – no team thought it was worth the attention or issue. (Although this is by no means assured. Players projected to go in a certain round do wind up going a lot higher or lower frequently enough, albeit usually for “various reasons.” And the reason here may, or may not have been, Sam’s declaration.)

Buffalo Bills center Eric Wood apparently thought the declaration probably had something to do with it as well. And the ensuing media focus:

On Sunday, Wood tweeted  it was due to likely media hype – and in particularly ESPN hype (somewhat aggressively parodied – see second half of this clip – on the Daily Show several days ago) –  that Sam was not yet on a roster. That is, for a player who would not be a starter, teams probably wouldn’t want the constant attention. (Woods tweet was picked up by numerous sports sources, including at ProFootballTalk, as well as by the Huffington Post, in a fairly short, informative article.)

There is one team though that is more like a national T.V. show than any other, and it also happens to be nicknamed “America’s Team.” The Dallas Cowboys.

This team, as it happens, may also have one of the worst defensive lines, and worst defensive line depth in the NFL. Despite going 8-8 for the third straight season last year, they also gave up more yards than any other team in the NFL last season.

This team needs defensive help. And this team needs defensive line help – particularly with the loss of one of the more dominant pass rushers in the game over the past decade, DeMarcus Ware (who went to Denver, who at at a dominant 13-3 last year hardly needed help), and an apparent lack of depth at the position,

Thus several days after Saturday’s final NFL roster cuts, and after not one team in the NFL had claimed Sam for its roster or even it’s 10 additional player practice squad, “America’s team” signed the former Rams draft pick to its practice  squad.

The story, for now, continues.

Sam reportedly did not look as strong in practice as he did in games  for the Rams. But the interesting question still remains.  Will he wind up moving to the Cowboy’s regular roster, and get into an NFL game?

In week 3 of this season, Dallas Travels to St. Louis, to face the team with arguably the best D line in football, and the team that originally drafted Sam. The Rams.

Only 46 players of those on the active roster can even dress for a game. To be in uniform, Sam would have to crack the 53 man roster, and be selected to dress as one of the 46 as well. Perhaps in part simply because of the story, but undoubtedly also because of the Cowboy’s defensive line woes, this week NFL Total Access co-host Dan Hellie predicted we”ll more likely than not see Sam on the team for the game against the Rams September 21.

It would certainly make for yet another good story line.

Update: Once Sam joined the Cowboys’ practice squad, the story seemed to die down, and nearly fade completely once the regular season started shortly thereafter.

The fact that the Cowboys, who were expected to have one of the worst defenses in the NFL, have played very strongly – including on defense (even with once gain losing their excellent middle linebacker Sean Lee for the season) – probably also helped diminish attention on the issue further.

And on October 21st, the Cowboys released Sam from their practice squad.  Yet as reminded in an informative NYTs article, Rams head coach Fisher has stated he “believes Sam can play in this league.”

As does Sam, who has been allegedly been offered opportunity (and advice) to play in Canada, and understandably wants to try and make it in the NFL.

and fans for their support. While this is disappointing, I will take the lessons I learned here in Dallas and continue to fight for an (2/3)

— Michael Sam (@MichaelSamNFL) October 21, 2014

opportunity to prove that I can play every Sunday. (3/3)

— Michael Sam (@MichaelSamNFL) October 21, 2014

Once again, we’ll see what happens.

Aside from the seeming parody (one hopes it is parody) of the meaningless correlation between the Rams and Cowboys losing after Sam was no longer officially part of their roster, there are arguments from commentators that given his pass rushing skill set, Sam should probably be with a team or its practice squad somewhere in the NFL right now. (Particularly – if team’s believe it – if Sam’s sexual orientation is a “dead issue,” as Cowboy’s owner Jerry Jones sensibly declared recently.)

But at this point it’s really also just about a player, and whether or not he makes it in the NFL; with the effect of Sam’s declaration (which, after getting cut by the Cowboys, he has moderately questioned) perhaps speculation at this point, perhaps not.