Should Roger Goodell be fired?

Dublin Red Devil

It's all over ESPN right now that a law enforcement source told the AP he sent video of Ray Rice punching his then-fiancée to the NFL months ago.
The NFL received it and saw it on April 9th.
If true The NFL and Roger Goodell are clearly lying and Goodell should be fired
http://espn.go.com/?ex_cid=splash_page_espn_com

Chucky the tree

I expect we'll be told the exc never did anything with the video and she'll be fired.

In Exile

Interesting to see if his comments relating to Sean PAyton come home to roost, when he said ignorance isn't an excuse

HigginsJ

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I expect we'll be told the exc never did anything with the video and she'll be fired.

Exactly this plausible deniability, he can say it never reached his desk.

Also as someone pointed out yesterday there will be no pressure from the biggest shareholders (the owners) as they see that the Bills are about to be bought for $1.4 billion. He is delivering for them and he will be able to ride it out

BizzyC

I doubt he'll be fired, but he has some serious work to do to repair the image of the NFL after this fiasco.

The sanctions put in place for players needs a complete overhaul.

kryogen

Someone will be fired, but it won't be Roger

no roger has done fantastic work on the leagues image there was a time when violent crimes where relatively common. although i dislike some of the "no fun league" rules he's brought in.

also most importantly there is no proof that he saw the tape so theres no way inn hell he will be fired

Realt Dearg Sec

Gloria CoolS Tackle wrote: »

also most importantly there is no proof that he saw the tape so theres no way inn hell he will be fired

Ignorance of the situation wasn't a good enough excuse to save Payton from Goodell's wrath in Bountygate. Either Goodell didn't do his due diligence, which is mind-blowing and he should be fired, or else he remained wilfully ignorant in which case, obviously, he should be fired, or he's lying about his ignorance, in which case he should be fired.

(Of course, I know, he won't be fired)

Realt Dearg Sec

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Ignorance of the situation wasn't a good enough excuse to save Payton from Goodell's wrath in Bountygate. Either Goodell didn't do his due diligence, which is mind-blowing and he should be fired, or else he remained wilfully ignorant in which case, obviously, he should be fired, or he's lying about his ignorance, in which case he should be fired.

(Of course, I know, he won't be fired)

**** flows down I'm afraid goodell will get a slap in the wrist worst case

Realt Dearg Sec

Gloria CoolS Tackle wrote: »

**** flows down I'm afraid goodell will get a slap in the wrist worst case

Yup. People make noise about this stuff but as long as we're still tuning in on Sunday, the owners will not care. And we're still tuning in on Sunday.

boccy23

Find this whole case odd.

If the NFL did have the tape, then why 2 games. Did they think TMZ or someone else would never leak it.

If they didn't have the tape, then why not. 18,000 documents on the whole file and no tape. Seems odd.

Also, what's in it for Goodell to lie at this stage.

The whole issue for Goodell is the fact that he is juudge, jury and executioner and leaves no distance for himself in this justice system. If he makes all the decisions, then he has to be responsible for same. Why not have a VP for Rules who he could blame for the 2 games and fire?

Oh yeah, by the way, should be reprimanded in some way but not fired.

eagle eye

He has to go because of the position he has put himself in where its almost no tolerance with the players.

boccy23

eagle eye wrote: »

He has to go because of the position he has put himself in where its almost no tolerance with the players.

No tolerance except where domestic violence is concerned. Ray McDonald still hasn't been dealt with. 49ers stand by him. League does the same.
The new "strict" policy means nothing if they don't implement it.

I still don't think he should go though. When the whole picture is looked at, it is a big mistake but only 1. He has overseen a league that sold one of it's least valuable franchises for $1.4B. He has brought games to London and will see further expansion. The league is "safer" and will continue to strive for this. The on-field product is good. The TV contracts are enormous and growing with internet/pay for view and other entities to be fully explored.

So due to the money/business side, I can't see him going.

adrian522

boccy23 wrote: »

No tolerance except where domestic violence is concerned. Ray McDonald still hasn't been dealt with. 49ers stand by him. League does the same.
The new "strict" policy means nothing if they don't implement it.

Do you think suspensions should be dished out before people find out what happened? I mean as soon as an allegation is made, which is the case with McDonald?

adrian522

I think James Harrison said it best:

@nflcommish ain't no fun when the rabbit got the gun huh?

- James Harrison (@jharrison9292) September 10, 2014

boccy23

adrian522 wrote: »

Do you think suspensions should be dished out before people find out what happened? I mean as soon as an allegation is made, which is the case with McDonald?

Consistency. How often have the league banned players for DUI / Sexual Assault / Drugs before due process has taken place in the court system. More than once to say the least.

adrian522

Not very often actually, Marshawn Lynch wasn't suspended for his because he wasn't charged. Aldon Smith got banned this year because it took over 2 years for the legal issues to be resolved.

What you are saying is McDonald should be banned, what 6 games, a year whatever because an accusation has been thrown his way?

To me that is utterly ridiculous. You have to take the time to find out what actually happened and not have this knee jerk reaction you are advocating.

eagle eye

boccy23 wrote: »

No tolerance except where domestic violence is concerned. Ray McDonald still hasn't been dealt with. 49ers stand by him. League does the same.
The new "strict" policy means nothing if they don't implement it.

I still don't think he should go though. When the whole picture is looked at, it is a big mistake but only 1. He has overseen a league that sold one of it's least valuable franchises for $1.4B. He has brought games to London and will see further expansion. The league is "safer" and will continue to strive for this. The on-field product is good. The TV contracts are enormous and growing with internet/pay for view and other entities to be fully explored.

So due to the money/business side, I can't see him going.

Clearly on the business side of things the NFL have made great strides during his time at the top.
The issue here is that he always projects himself as being held to a higher standard. He has banned players when they were not charged by the DA.

Now an issue has arose where it looks certain he seen the video tape long before the public and he has to be held accountable for that. Its how he plays the game himself so there is no way out of this.

He has lost the respect of a huge amount of the public how that its come out that the NFL had the video three months ago.

Billy86

He built his whole image on some seriously cringed "there's a new sheriff in town, he won't take any prisoners when it comes to discipline" talk in his earlirr years in the position, and as someone else mentioned has used "ignorance is not an excuse" type lines for Sean Peyton and if I recall several players who have broken the substance abuse policy by accident (e.g. additives in painkillers, standard food stuffs, etc), or at least by their claims.

Of course as this fiasco has shown, the NFL is not exactly the most reliable place in the world for how they take action. I also expect we will see Goodell walk clear of this without any punishment of note, and probably little more than a "talking to" behind closed doors.

What really interests me though, is that the woman who saw the video and called it "horrible" did so via email, right? Now I highly doubt she did so and proceeded to just sit on it, so if they decide to plant all the blame on her and it later transpires that she contacted superiors about it via email (so it is easily traceable)... then things could get REALLY interesting!

boccy23

Pacman Jones
Chris Henry
Tank Johnson
Ben Roethlisberger
Mike Vick

All of the above were dealt with by the league before due process had taken place.

Why is Ray McDonald different. The league carries out it's own investigations outside of the legal system. If they determine this, then bans are applied.

Also, by the same argument as McDonald, then Ray Rice should not have been banned. He wasn't charged. He entered into stage 1 of the counseling process. Also max. should be 6 games according to the league's own policy.

Difference here is that we all saw what happened in the elevator and the reaction is to the video.

Chardee MacDennis

boccy23 wrote: »

Consistency. How often have the league banned players for DUI / Sexual Assault / Drugs before due process has taken place in the court system. More than once to say the least.

examples please?

boccy23

BastardPrince wrote: »

examples please?

As aboveChris Henry was suspended "indefinitely" by the NFL pending the results of his trial.

Big Ben's case was a civil suit and yet he was suspended.

adrian522

boccy23 wrote: »

Pacman Jones
Chris Henry
Tank Johnson
Ben Roethlisberger
Mike Vick

All of the above were dealt with by the league before due process had taken place.

Why is Ray McDonald different. The league carries out it's own investigations outside of the legal system. If they determine this, then bans are applied.

Also, by the same argument as McDonald, then Ray Rice should not have been banned. He wasn't charged. He entered into stage 1 of the counseling process. Also max. should be 6 games according to the league's own policy.

Difference here is that we all saw what happened in the elevator and the reaction is to the video.

So an allegation gets made and he should be suspended that week. Is that what you are suggesting?

How long should the suspension be for?

Billy86

adrian522 wrote: »

So an allegation gets made and he should be suspended that week. Is that what you are suggesting?

How long should the suspension be for?

I think it is more to do with consistency than anything else. Just the fact that Goodell reacted to allegations previously kind of ties his hands in terms of how to treat allegations moving forward.

But consistency has never been something he has worried himself with much, so I don't think Ray McDonald has too much to worry about in the immediate future.

Bateman

The "integrity" of the league, which is his brief to protect, is probably at an all-time low. Scratch the surface and this is clearly not a one-off mistake. This seems a fair summary:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/what-does-it-take-to-get-roger-goodell-fired-2/

Podge_irl

boccy23 wrote: »

Also, by the same argument as McDonald, then Ray Rice should not have been banned. He wasn't charged. He entered into stage 1 of the counseling process. Also max. should be 6 games according to the league's own policy.

boccy23 wrote: »

As aboveChris Henry was suspended "indefinitely" by the NFL pending the results of his trial.

Ray Rice was charged or he wouldn't have entered any program and if Henry was awaiting a trial than he was, quite obviously, charged as well.

You're mixing up charged with convicted. McDonald hasn't even been charged with anything. Following your logic Kaep would have been banned the second someone completely maliciously and falsely made allegations about him earlier this year.

UnitedIrishman

Whether he's fired or not, I think they really need to reevaluate their suspensions system for all acts of misconduct. I know they have sort of started with the drugs thing this week but I think a complete overhaul could be necessary rather than the 'winging it' methods that seem to be in place right now.

Bateman

So is it too much to ask that players don't get arrested on suspicion of domestic violence?

boccy23

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ray Rice was charged or he wouldn't have entered any program and if Henry was awaiting a trial than he was, quite obviously, charged as well.

You're mixing up charged with convicted. McDonald hasn't even been charged with anything. Following your logic Kaep would have been banned the second someone completely maliciously and falsely made allegations about him earlier this year.

"San Francisco 49ers defensive lineman Ray McDonald was arrested early Sunday and charged with one count of felony domestic violence after an incident at his San Jose home."

Whether he is convicted or not, what I think is that the NFL should be proactive with this particular case. And yes, it is bad timing for Mr. McDonald, but the NFL has to show that it is taking this case seriously and has learned from Ray Rice's case.

There is also a 49ers legend Brent Jones who recently said, “The logical, thoughtful leadership move would be not to have [Mr. McDonald] play;”

adrian522

I think it's complete nonsense that players would get banned on the basis of potentially malicious allegations.

What's to stop teams having allegations made against star players on the opposition?

This is complete knee jerk over reaction.

Also Brent Jones was talking about the 49ers decision to play or bench him, nothing to do with suspensions.

Should the NFL have also been "proactive" by banning Kaeprnick when he was falsely accused?

Where does it all end if that's the case.

Bateman

How many "allegations" made in the past have been proven as "false"?

adrian522

32,134

boccy23

I accept that there have been a number of such false accusations. But has the NFL or Goodell ever had any such reaction from being over-zealous that they are currently getting from letting Ray Rice "slide" with 2 games.

Listening to ESPN and Dan Patrick this morning, I think the possibility of Goodell getting fired is far higher than I would have thought.

boccy23

adrian522 wrote: »

32,134

Is it not 31,234?

adrian522

No, it's gone up since we started this thread..

Bateman

Even allowing for the sarcastic response, you seem to be getting hung up on a problem that doesn't exist, whereas some of us are pointing out that Goodell should be concerning himself with the problems that are staring him right in the face.

There are areas in which players require more protection than the NFL has provided of late. Head injuries is one such area. False allegations is not such an area.

Realt Dearg Sec

Bateman wrote: »

Even allowing for the sarcastic response, you seem to be getting hung up on a problem that doesn't exist, whereas some of us are pointing out that Goodell should be concerning himself with the problems that are staring him right in the face.

There are areas in which players require more protection than the NFL has provided of late. Head injuries is one such area. False allegations is not such an area.

But you do seem to be advocating making it into such an area, for no reason I can see. Following your logic, Kaepernick (to use that example) would have been suspended, wrongly. Why go about creating a situation where that could happen? Who benefits?

adrian522

Well it was a silly enough question that is impossible to answer, hence the response.

Of course its a problem if you are going to start handing out bans at the first sign of an unsubstantiated allegation. How do you think that would not be a problem.

Personally I wouldn't be a huge fan of the guilty until proven innocent strategy that you seem to be advocating, but each to their own I guess.

dwayneshintzy

Gloria CoolS Tackle wrote: »

no roger has done fantastic work on the leagues image

Couldn't possibly agree with this. He's sanctimonious, sure, but it's all BS.

Hazys

No unless he blatantly lied to the public about the incident, even then i don't think its a sack able offense. Of course the NFL doesn't look good and rightfully so but I think a sacking of Goodell is so OTT and i'm not even a fan of Goodell. If there was a repeat of this incident, then maybe.

This trail by twitter society that we are developing is ridiculous. Basically we have a bunch of talking heads with nothing better to do and who don't even try to look at the situation objectively are saying outrageous things to increase their page/TV views, feigning outrage over the Ray Rice situation with little to no facts.

TBH I think Goodell just needs to ride this out for another week or two till the next hot scandal comes along and the Ray Rice situation is not sexy enough for the talking heads to fake outrage over anymore.

Hazys

adrian522 wrote: »

I think James Harrison said it best:

@nflcommish ain't no fun when the rabbit got the gun huh?

- James Harrison (@jharrison9292) September 10, 2014

A bit rich coming from a guy twice accused of domestic abuse...Harrison is a douchebag.

Bateman

I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that anyone who expresses dissatisfaction with Goodell's handling of both this controversy and other recent controversies is calling for auto-bans upon arrest. Can you point out where that was advocated?

While you are churlishly accusing posters of being in favour of immediate bans, can you address the point that Goodell is guilty of either gross incompetence [in the case that NFL execs actually haven't seen the tape til now] or else gross insensitivity and a catastrophic misjudgement [in the case that the NFL have seen the tape before now and still went with the 2 games]? If you agree that there is no third way outside of the above eventualities, then it is staggering to suggest that he is NFL leadership material.

eagle eye

Hazys wrote: »

A bit rich coming from a guy twice accused of domestic abuse...Harrison is a douchebag.

Was he accused twice? I remember one incident over his child being christened or something like that.

Hazys

Maybe there was only one incident http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3327255

But he wasn't just accused, he was guilty of domestic abuse. Doesn't make him any less of a scumbag just because it happened once (not to mention the rest of his personality or rap sheet).

This is an example of why i think the Ray Rice suspension is harsh. The only difference between him and all the other NFL players who committed the same crime is that there was a tape.

For all the people saying "We'll the tape is hard to watch", "It makes it more real", etc. It's basically the tree falling in the woods analogy. If we didn't see the tape, well its really not a serious crime, its only text on a news feed so it really doesn't matter but if there is a video "Wow that vicious" I only really care about domestic abuse now...such BS.

Bateman

The supposed hypocrisy of us normal punters watching the tape and getting extra-offended needs to be set aside for a minute.

Goodell has unrivalled power, money and resources at his disposal - once it was known that the tape exists, I can't personally believe that he wasn't aware of its existence.

If that makes me guilty of "trial by twitter", or some other moronic label that lumps me in with the "talking heads", that's fine by me.

Hazys

I think Goodell and the NFL saw the tape.

They studied it and decided to give Rice a 2 game suspension based on the fact it was his first offense in the league, there was no arrest or conviction and the precedent was already set based on the lack of suspensions given out for domestic abuse cases to NFL players already. So it would have been the highest suspension given for Domestic Abuse in the NFL....even at that i think they dropped the ball, it should have been a 6 or 8 game suspension.

I think if they gave a 6 or 8 game suspension that would have been mostly the end of it. The only worry would have been that since the suspension was so high in comparison to previous Domestic Abuse incidents Rice would have appealed.

The only difference is the tape and all the people getting on their high horses about Domestic Abuse when they never cared about it in all the incidents that came before.

Hazys

Bateman wrote: »

The supposed hypocrisy of us normal punters watching the tape and getting extra-offended needs to be set aside for a minute.

Goodell has unrivalled power, money and resources at his disposal - once it was known that the tape exists, I can't personally believe that he wasn't aware of its existence.

If that makes me guilty of "trial by twitter", or some other moronic label that lumps me in with the "talking heads", that's fine by me.

I think Goodell f'd up the entire situation with only giving a 2 game suspension and is possibly lying about seeing the tape but do honestly think he should lose his job over this?

Its not like he punched his wife in the face...some perspective is needed.

adrian522

Bateman wrote: »

I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that anyone who expresses dissatisfaction with Goodell's handling of both this controversy and other recent controversies is calling for auto-bans upon arrest. Can you point out where that was advocated?

I didn't suggest any such thing. Can you point out where I did?

I think Goodell has done a terrible job and should be relieved of his duties.

I also think it's ridiculous to suggest that players should be banned before we know what actually happened and if they have done anything wrong.

Bateman wrote: »

While you are churlishly accusing posters of being in favour of immediate bans, can you address the point that Goodell is guilty of either gross incompetence [in the case that NFL execs actually haven't seen the tape til now] or else gross insensitivity and a catastrophic misjudgement [in the case that the NFL have seen the tape before now and still went with the 2 games]? If you agree that there is no third way outside of the above eventualities, then it is staggering to suggest that he is NFL leadership material.

I'm not churlishly accusing posters of anything, I'm responding to points that have been made earlier in the thread, particularly those below.


"Ray McDonald still hasn't been dealt with. 49ers stand by him. League does the same.
The new "strict" policy means nothing if they don't implement it. "

That incident happened 1 week ago, no way should he be suspended already.

Then you asked

"So is it too much to ask that players don't get arrested on suspicion of domestic violence?"

Clearly implying that an arrest is enough for discipline to be handed out.

Then we had this

"Whether he is convicted or not, what I think is that the NFL should be proactive with this particular case."

Again the implication that even without proof of wrongdoing a suspension should be handed out.

Then you started questioning how much of an issue false allegations are

"How many "allegations" made in the past have been proven as "false"?"

Then " you seem to be getting hung up on a problem that doesn't exist,"

When clearly if we went down the road of suspending players at the first sign of trouble it would be a serious issue.

Bateman

I think this is just the latest in a line of incidents that prove he doesn't have the leadership qualities required for such an important job.

I can’t believe that people are giving him credit for bringing a few games to Wembley as some kind of proof that he is doing a fantastic job. Maybe not everyone understands the role [I certainly don’t fully]

Bateman

adrian522 wrote: »

I didn't suggest any such thing. Can you point out where I did?

Personally I wouldn't be a huge fan of the guilty until proven innocent strategy that you seem to be advocating, but each to their own I guess.

There has to be a middle ground because there will be cases where a woman doesn't want it to go to court, so it doesn't go to court. You will never get your conviction, so the NFL in theory won't be obliged to hand out any bans.

If the leader of the organisation can't find a better way to approach this than the current fudge (I think we can agree that neither of us are saying that any extreme is ideal), then he's not fit to lead.

padraig_f

Hazys wrote: »

Maybe there was only one incident http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3327255

But he wasn't just accused, he was guilty of domestic abuse. Doesn't make him any less of a scumbag just because it happened once (not to mention the rest of his personality or rap sheet).

This is an example of why i think the Ray Rice suspension is harsh. The only difference between him and all the other NFL players who committed the same crime is that there was a tape.

For all the people saying "We'll the tape is hard to watch", "It makes it more real", etc. It's basically the tree falling in the woods analogy. If we didn't see the tape, well its really not a serious crime, its only text on a news feed so it really doesn't matter but if there is a video "Wow that vicious" I only really care about domestic abuse now...such BS.

I was someone who changed my mind after seeing the tape. In my defence, it's not my full-time job to investigate these matters, and I didn't have access to all the info the NFL did. I assumed (maybe naively) that the NFL would do a competent job investigating. What the tape showed was, this wasn't the case.

Maybe a better analogy is: 'if a tree falls in the forest, and you're paying a guy $44m/year to determine whether the tree has fallen or not, and he's not capable of doing that – then you have a problem'.