Ray Rice suspended for 2 games

[-The Glove-]

He shouldn't even apologized except for not being more clear with his point

 

[nanomoz]

On topic: count me among those that thing the NFL's featherweight 2-game suspension for domestic violence--that was captured on tape--is absolutely horrifying.

Yes, there's circumstances we don't know. But no one's who's seen that footage can justify such an assault on a woman (let alone a woman that is clearly inebriated).

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

On topic: count me among those that thing the NFL's featherweight 2-game suspension for domestic violence--that was captured on tape--is absolutely horrifying.

Yes, there's circumstances we don't know. But no one's who's seen that footage can justify such an assault on a woman (let alone a woman that is clearly inebriated).

Yep. As mentioned earlier on this thread, a half season for smoking weed and 2 games for beating the wife. Seems about right Rog.

 

[Sterling Archer]

With Rice, we didn't actually see the attack, we just saw that she was knocked out. Him dragging her around was just him trying to get her off the elevator, and most likely, to seek medical attention. What he did is inexcusable, I just don't find the dragging itself to be anything of note.

You watch that video of him dragging her off the elevator... letting her drop to the floor, kicking her legs out of the way of the door, and you actually think he is worried about her medical state? That's insane to me and I really think that you are seeing what you want to see.

The whole incident is disgusting and I'm glad it was captured on tape so that people can see what domestic violence actually looks like. It's uncomfortable especially when one of our "heroes" and reported "good guys" is the one doing it. There is never an excuse for it and putting the onus on the woman to not "provoke her man" is horrible and the exact wrong message we need to be sending. This being such a male dominated sport (and forum), I'm glad to see that most people are upset by the extremely minor punishment handed out to Rice.

 

[loafoftatupu]

OK...then why SHOULDN'T the 5 games count toward the suspension?

I think they should count towards the suspension he would get for the DUI, it is the other 3 convictions I think he should be suspended for. Even that doesn't really bother me though, I don't think it should even be illegal, but it is.

This is what gets me though, dudes get tested for Substance abuse and suspended. Smith, Lockette, Patton and KaeperSpaz all were associated with the cheeb, Smith had it in the car, Lockette and KaeperSpaz had it in the hotel room, yet no one is taking/failing any tests that we know of.

Dude that hits his woman should be DONE, until he can prove that he addressed his problem. The guy did it on video, that is some jacked up stuff. Now Rice went through some kind of program, but players are getting NAILED for smoking pot like it is a serious crime.

RE: Weed. As far as I know, the weed in Aldons car was a false report. Supposedly the Police said that there was no weed found. He was also never charged for possession. As for Kap, the only person claiming it was there is a woman who stalked Kap, freaked out when he had other women in the house (even though he didn't invite her there), ran into the bedroom, stripped naked, and started yelling about angels and demons. She then told the police she didn't know how she got to the hospital and that Kap took her clothes off. To say her credibility is stretched is an understatement.

RE: Hitting a woman. Agreed. In my book, that's all she wrote. That's why I continue to have an issue with Parrish Cox and why I was pretty upset when the first reports came out about the incident with Kap.

Lmao.

They didn't even cite him for swapping his license plates. Of course there was no possession charge. They just made it up and retracted the information.

Don't be naive Marvin, you are better than that. This is the same entity that didn't press charges on Brooks after smashing a beer bottle over his teammate's head. When it comes to the Niners, laws do not apply.

Hey, CK, Lockette and Patton are all in a hotel room with a bong. Do you believe CK doesn't smoke weed?



Do you think that

 

[Sgt. Largent]

With Rice, we didn't actually see the attack, we just saw that she was knocked out. Him dragging her around was just him trying to get her off the elevator, and most likely, to seek medical attention. What he did is inexcusable, I just don't find the dragging itself to be anything of note.

This was a casino, so there were cameras in that elevator. So my guess is the police as well as Goodell saw what happened inside, and I don't see any scenario where it'd make Rice look any better.

Even if she was hitting him and freaking out, he had to have hit her hard enough to knock her unconscious. Either way, NOT good........and certainly deserving of more than two games.

This was the league's opportunity to make an example out of Rice to let everyone know domestic violence isn't going to be taken lightly..............instead? It was taken lightly.

 

[kidhawk]

Stephen A Smith was suspended from ESPN for a week for his comments, likely costing him a similar sum as Rice and only one week less and Rice actually committed the act. Not saying that Smith's suspension isn't warranted, just that it makes Rices look even lighter in view of the two actions.

[urltargetblank]http://frontrow.espn.go.com/2014/07/espn-statement-stephen-smith/[/urltargetblank]

UPDATE – Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 4:35 p.m. ET: “ESPN announced today that Stephen A. Smith will not appear on First Take or ESPN Radio for the next week. He will return to ESPN next Wednesday.”

 

[kearly]

I do think your points are fair except for your assertion that bringing up Dungy's conservative religious views (that he has publicly offered) or his race (in this context, in which his inability to empathize is laid bare) is at all bigoted.

The majority hold the same views and many of them are non-black and/or non-christian. To cite race/religion only for Dungy selectively is making unfair assumptions based on his race and religion. It also strikes me as a way of disregarding the points he makes by wiping them away with the pretense that he's close-minded. Which is also unfair. Dungy makes fair points and most people in the NFL saw it the same way he did.

You watch that video of him dragging her off the elevator... letting her drop to the floor, kicking her legs out of the way of the door, and you actually think he is worried about her medical state? That's insane to me and I really think that you are seeing what you want to see.

I want to make this very clear. I think Ray Rice is scum.

With that said, I saw the video, and just watched again to be sure. IMO, you are over-dramatizing it. He's just trying to get her off the elevator. He let her down softly and because he legs were spread wide open, he tapped them with a foot before later putting them together by hand.

Dude's scum for knocking out his woman, I'm just not bothered by him getting her off the elevator like anyone else would have done. If I must have transference outrage, I'd rather choose to be pissed at his press conference he had a few days later where he showed zero remorse.

There is never an excuse for it and putting the onus on the woman to not "provoke her man" is horrible and the exact wrong message we need to be sending.

I see it the exact opposite. Yes, there are a lot of deadbeat guys who are 100% guilty and their women are the victims 100%. But there are also a lot of men who would not go so far as this without significant, intentional provocation. If the ultimate goal is to reduce domestic violence, then why only ask men to show restraint? Ask both sexes to be mindful of their behavior and fewer incidents will occur. As glove and many others have observed, our cultural double standard can actually exacerbate domestic violence because it creates an environment where some women become emboldened as instigators thinking they are untouchable rather than taking responsibility by not escalating violence themselves.

It doesn't justify the violence, nobody thinks that. But if you want less violence, then we need to stop creating a fertile environment for instigators and then giving them a free pass when they contribute to domestic violence. Less instigation means less violence. Less violence is the goal, and we should be open-minded about ways to achieve it. That's all Stephan A. is saying and I think his message is helpful, even if society isn't ready to hear it.

Stephen A Smith was suspended from ESPN for a week for his comments, likely costing him a similar sum as Rice and only one week less and Rice actually committed the act. Not saying that Smith's suspension isn't warranted, just that it makes Rices look even lighter in view of the two actions.

Given how much heat Smith has been taking, I'm guessing a week away from it will hardly feel like a punishment.

I am on Smith's side but this is a savvy move by ESPN.

Even if she was hitting him and freaking out, he had to have hit her hard enough to knock her unconscious. Either way, NOT good........and certainly deserving of more than two games.

Agreed 100%. Two weeks was a lot less than I was expecting. Provoked or not, legally binding or not, domestic violence should get the hammer from the league. NFL players are looked up to by millions of youth and must be held to a higher standard.

The NFL's suspension system is a joke.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

I do think your points are fair except for your assertion that bringing up Dungy's conservative religious views (that he has publicly offered) or his race (in this context, in which his inability to empathize is laid bare) is at all bigoted.

The majority hold the same views and many of them are non-black and/or non-christian. To cite race/religion only for Dungy selectively is making unfair assumptions based on his race and religion. It also strikes me as a way of disregarding the points he makes by wiping them away with the pretense that he's close-minded. Which is also unfair. Dungy makes fair points and most people in the NFL saw it the same way he did.

I don't see how an appeal to bandwagon makes Dungy immune from criticism. Any black person who holds Dungy's views is at best unempathetic and at worst the very monster that their forefathers fought against. People who point out this reality regarding Dungy are not necessarily disregarding his point, but they are making a point about how discriminatory behavior comes in all colors (and about the irony inherent in Dungy's position).

Bandwagon arguments are illogical. Just because Dungy parroted the same closed-minded (or if you believe that it isn't about prejudice, but just about not wanting to take the heat that would come with being fair or equal to gay players as a team would be to straight players, "cowardly" fits better than "closed-minded") views as other NFL teams doesn't make him free from attack or make his point valid. It just means that the NFL is at the point with gay folks now as MLB was with black folks in the late '40s. Whether or not you see that as a problem is a different issue.

Second, there are not unfair assumptions being made about Dungy specifically in this case. Dungy has said that he supports making gay marriage illegal and thinks that being gay is a "lifestyle" (as he said when he spoke about Jason Collins). He is also openly conservatively Christian (just read his book Quiet Strength). There is no assumption being made there; there is merely a correlation. While I won't judge Dungy for his beliefs, I will say that your point that Dungy is being dismissed because of his religious beliefs doesn't hold water. His religious beliefs define him as a person in many ways, so why would we think that they have no influence on his position regarding gay players in the locker room?

This is getting off-topic and should probably be in the Dungy thread. I don't want to argue about religious beliefs. I do think that Dungy's point is invalid, and if Coach Carroll said the same thing, I would disagree with him and call his views cowardly, too. The amount of people making a point doesn't make the point valid. I haven't seen what Coach Carroll has said on the matter though.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Is this an inappropriate time to post a Prodigy music video?

 

[Sterling Archer]

I see it the exact opposite. Yes, there are a lot of deadbeat guys who are 100% guilty and their women are the victims 100%. But there are also a lot of men who would not go so far as this without significant, intentional provocation. If the ultimate goal is to reduce domestic violence, then why only ask men to show restraint? Ask both sexes to be mindful of their behavior and fewer incidents will occur. As glove and many others have observed, our cultural double standard can actually exacerbate domestic violence because it creates an environment where some women become emboldened as instigators thinking they are untouchable rather than taking responsibility by not escalating violence themselves.

It doesn't justify the violence, nobody thinks that. But if you want less violence, then we need to stop creating a fertile environment for instigators and then giving them a free pass when they contribute to domestic violence. Less instigation means less violence. Less violence is the goal, and we should be open-minded about ways to achieve it. That's all Stephan A. is saying and I think his message is helpful, even if society isn't ready to hear it.

The issue is that you're victim blaming, akin to "she shouldn't have worn that dress" or "been drinking". I know you don't and won't see it that way, so I won't keep harping on this after this post.

Trying to draw that line is impossible and nebulous territory... is it provocation if she tells him to "screw off" or looks at another man? How much slapping is enough to result in her getting knocked unconscious? This is besides the fact, that a lot of domestic violence turns deadly, and 99% of the time that is toward the woman. I know you're against violence and think Rice is scum, but...

It doesn't justify rape, nobody thinks that. But if you want less sexual assault, then we need to stop creating a fertile environment for instigators and then giving them a free pass when they contribute to sexual assault.

Men and women live in different worlds and victim blaming is a dangerous game.

 

[-The Glove-]

I see it the exact opposite. Yes, there are a lot of deadbeat guys who are 100% guilty and their women are the victims 100%. But there are also a lot of men who would not go so far as this without significant, intentional provocation. If the ultimate goal is to reduce domestic violence, then why only ask men to show restraint? Ask both sexes to be mindful of their behavior and fewer incidents will occur. As glove and many others have observed, our cultural double standard can actually exacerbate domestic violence because it creates an environment where some women become emboldened as instigators thinking they are untouchable rather than taking responsibility by not escalating violence themselves.

It doesn't justify the violence, nobody thinks that. But if you want less violence, then we need to stop creating a fertile environment for instigators and then giving them a free pass when they contribute to domestic violence. Less instigation means less violence. Less violence is the goal, and we should be open-minded about ways to achieve it. That's all Stephan A. is saying and I think his message is helpful, even if society isn't ready to hear it.

The issue is that you're victim blaming, akin to "she shouldn't have worn that dress" or "been drinking". I know you don't and won't see it that way, so I won't keep harping on this after this post.

Trying to draw that line is impossible and nebulous territory... is it provocation if she tells him to "screw off" or looks at another man? How much slapping is enough to result in her getting knocked unconscious? This is besides the fact, that a lot of domestic violence turns deadly, and 99% of the time that is toward the woman. I know you're against violence and think Rice is scum, but...

It doesn't justify rape, nobody thinks that. But if you want less sexual assault, then we need to stop creating a fertile environment for instigators and then giving them a free pass when they contribute to sexual assault.

Men and women live in different worlds and victim blaming is a dangerous game.

I see this issue equated to "she shouldn't have worn that" all the time. Provocation in this case is doing something explicitly to deserve an equal or greater reaction. The fact that she was also charged with simple assault is proof she wasn't completely innocent-unlike a girl dressing provocatively. Of course, Ray Rice's reaction was extreme but to say she didn't provoke him is completely false

 

[kearly]

The issue is that you're victim blaming, akin to "she shouldn't have worn that dress" or "been drinking". I know you don't and won't see it that way, so I won't keep harping on this after this post.

Trying to draw that line is impossible and nebulous territory... is it provocation if she tells him to "screw off" or looks at another man? How much slapping is enough to result in her getting knocked unconscious? This is besides the fact, that a lot of domestic violence turns deadly, and 99% of the time that is toward the woman. I know you're against violence and think Rice is scum, but...

It doesn't justify rape, nobody thinks that. But if you want less sexual assault, then we need to stop creating a fertile environment for instigators and then giving them a free pass when they contribute to sexual assault.

Men and women live in different worlds and victim blaming is a dangerous game.

The only dangerous game is being unwilling to think of ways to lower rates of violent crimes just because they might offend fringe groups or political correctness nazis.

I just think that if you want less violence, you need more than just male responsibility. Not all males are going to be responsible. Women need to know the kind of situations that lead to rape so they can avoid them more often, they need to know what to do if a rape attempt occurs so they can escape it, they need to know what kind of situations lead to domestic violence so they can avoid them, and so on.

In the Rice case, his fiance spit on and struck him moments before the assault. The law doesn't let her get away with that, and neither should we. If just one of those two individuals had been responsible and smart we probably aren't talking about this at all. To me this is no excuse for what Rice did, but to say his fiance is a victim with no responsibility is just as wrong as saying it was okay for Rice to hit her. They were both wrong for what they did.

 

[kearly]

I don't see how an appeal to bandwagon makes Dungy immune from criticism.

Yes, his beliefs factor in that, but it's kind of meaningless when everyone else, Christian or not, agrees with him. And his being black is a non-factor, he thinks Sam deserves a chance in the NFL, he is on the record saying he is for progress. Dungy has coached plenty of guys who's lifestyles violated his personal values during his time in the NFL, but he still coached them. I don't think Dungy is naive enough to think he's never had a gay man in his locker room before. His argument is not based on morals, but on risk/reward.

And I see no reason to doubt him when others have said the same. I suppose you could say accuse Dungy of hiding behind this reasoning to cover for his religious beliefs, but the fact that his argument is so widely accepted by other GMs lends credibility to his take.

It would be one thing if most people disagreed with him or if it was 50/50. But pretty much everyone running NFL Teams sees it the same way he does. Look, it's not like 31 NFL FO's all reached this conclusion independently because of anything being inherently wrong with homosexuality. It's about how the dominoes could fall based on the actions of the other 52 guys in that locker room. A lot of people got fired over bully-gate. Can you imagine how bad it could be if one of those 52 guys were to bully Sam into quitting? I wouldn't predict it to happen, but is there a chance? Yes. Even if it's just a 10% chance, that's a really big risk given the enormity of the fallout.

The NFL is a business that requires making business decisions to keep your job. That means weighing risk/reward. The risk on Sam is very high (through no fault of his own). The reward is basically zero, other than being praised as a beacon for progress.

There are myriad differences between Sam and Robinson, but the biggest is that Robinson was actually an extremely good baseball player. If Jadevon Clowney or Andrew Luck came out, there would be far fewer, if any, teams that would take him off their boards because of the potential locker room downsides. Because they know the players would respect an elite player for helping them win, instead of just being the fringe talent who's there because the NFL doesn't want to look bad.

In other words, it's not that Sam's downside is absolute, there is a point where he becomes worth the risk. But to almost every team, the non-existent upside was outweighed by the pressure that Sam, in a worst case scenario, could end up like UK's first openly gay footballer did.

I would be surprised if Sam sees a second NFL contract, and his willingness to cash in on the Michael Sam phenomena with interviews, TV appearances, and merchandize kind of tells me he thinks that too. In the end I think this Michael Sam saga will only be a short lived sideshow with no positive benefit to the Rams. I am glad he's doing it though because it will open the door ever so slightly for the real difference maker, the day an elite all-pro player decides to come out in his prime and be the gay version of Jackie Robinson.