NFL Discipline Can't Be A PR Move
Consistency in handling off-field situations won't be achieved if punishment is based on the headlines.
Back in 2007, just seven months after Roger Goodell became the new NFL commissioner, he made headlines by handing down strict punishment on players who had multiple run-ins with the law.
Among them was cornerback Adam Jones, who had 10 incidents in which he was at least questioned by law enforcement, and faced felony and misdemeanor charges after a fight and shooting left one man paralyzed, got a season-long suspension. Wide receiver Chris Henry, meanwhile, got an eight-game suspension after being arrested four times in a 14-month span (he had been previously disciplined by the NFL).
Just months into his tenure, Goodell earned a reputation as being a commissioner who would get tough on inappropriate off-field behavior.
Fast forward several years later and more people called Goodell's approach into question. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason for the punishment Goodell handed down to players for their off-field behavior.
The point in which more people may have started questioning his approach came after TMZ shared video footage of Ray Rice dragging his fiancé out of an elevator. Rice pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence and Goodell gave him a two-game suspension.
Later, TMZ released additional video footage showing Rice's actions, which led to the NFL suspending Rice indefinitely, claiming it didn’t know about the additional video. However, the NFLPA appealed and Rice's suspension was overturned, with the revelation that Rice's description of what transpired matched was what on the video.
Meanwhile, Goodell announced a new change to the personal conduct policy, with a domestic violence arrest resulting in a six-game suspension and a lifetime ban for a second violation.
But he wasn't consistent with how he handled such situations. Greg Hardy, whose domestic violence arrest came under scrutiny at the time of Rice's situation, got a 10-game suspension, reduced to four on appeal. Josh Brown, meanwhile, got just a one-game suspension, but it became six upon the NFL's claims about "new information." Never mind that Brown's arrest in question happened a year after the Rice ordeal.
That Goodell couldn't remain consistent with "six games for a first offense" policy for domestic violence arrests makes it hard to shatter the perception that suspensions were more about public relations than taking a consistent approach.
Now move to today, in which DeShaun Watson faced more than 20 lawsuits for sexual assault. The NFLPA has since renegotiated the collective bargaining agreement to require an independent arbitrator to hear such cases and hand down punishment as appropriate.
One may argue with Sue Robinson about her usage of language such as "non violent," but she wasn't wrong to cite the NFL's own policies that resulted in just a six-game suspension.
But we're not done yet, because either the NFL or the NFLPA is allowed to appeal such a decision, in which Goodell hears appeal. Sure enough, the NFL has said it will appeal the Watson suspension.
And though Goodell has since announced that Peter G. Harvey will hear the appeal instead, the PR move is still hard to dismiss. After all, Watson may get his suspension increased and the NFL gets praised by some for doing the right thing.
However, those who want to do the right thing should be asking for consistency here — not because Watson's action were "non violent," but because you want to handle situations based on the severity of a situation and how often it happened. Allow me to explain.
With sexual assault, should criminal charges be filed, there are state laws that distinguish between misdemeanor and felony sexual assault. If no criminal charges are filed, a civil complaint may still emerge.
If we consider a criminal charge to be more serious than a civil complaint, and a felony to be more serious than a misdemeanor, we can set consistent guidelines for how punishment will be handled should a player either be convicted or settle a civil case.
Say we go with a four-game suspension for a civil complaint in which the player settles or is found responsible, an eight-game suspension for a misdemeanor and a season-long suspension for a felony. Then we say that punishment may be greater if there are multiple incidents involving multiple people.
In Watson's case, it's not difficult to argue for a season-long suspension under such a policy, because while he may get four games for one incident, he has much more than just one incident and, therefore, should get a longer suspension.
But when you don't have consistency in how punishments are handled, or language in a CBA that is vague, you run into problems when others are asked to intervene.
Furthermore, if you hand out discipline based on whether there's video or a case happens at the same time as a current high-profile case you’re reviewing, you aren't engaging in consistency with the nature of the offense. Video footage may be used as evidence for a conviction, but a domestic violence situation caught on video isn't automatically more serious than the one that isn't.
One can look at past suspensions handed out and, when looking at those that fall under the personal conduct policy, it’s hard to understand the NFL’s reasoning. How does one justify four games for Jimmy Smith, six for Ezekiel Elliott and eight for Mark Walton when all of them faced a similar charge?
Handing out discipline simply based on public relations serves neither the players nor those who have been wronged. It only leads to more confusion over what is being considered with discipline. A consistent approach may not make everyone happy, but the point of discipline is be consistent in holding players accountable, not to engage in PR moves.