Big Ben going to get banned?

steelcityblues

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Burress shot himself not someone so that makes him even more a tit. And they all are tits and were banned before being found guilty as they broke the same rule. But the point of my piece was that the rule is coming into affect more now because of tits like those I listed. Remember it doesnt matter whether they are found guilty or not the NFL's conduct rule would have most likely banned them either way for being tits. They can be innocent of any crime and still break the Player's Conduct ruling the NFL has it is that simple.

Again some of you are missing the point of the NFL's Player Conduct Rule. It is not in place to punish just those who broke the law. It is in place for those who make the NFL look stupid by acting like tits in public and bringing attention on themselves. What Big Ben did regardless of whether he is guilty or not most definitely puts the NFL in bad light. They are supposed to act professional at all times. If they don't want to obey the contract they sign well then they may want to quit the NFL soon because players acting like tits seems like it is becoming more and more of a no no.

I think most people know and 'get' the NFLs player policy and maybe a few others see it for the vague policy that it is (just my opinion).

No one wants a player from their favourite team to be an ass away from the field, but I have always found this notion of players having to be 'professional' 24/7 to be blatantly unrealistic and perhaps distinctively American.

Contrast the media of about 50 years ago who largely limited their criticism to actual sporting matters, to today's windbags who are not even sports journalists/fans who want to butt in on these matters!

tallaghtoutlaws

steelcityblues wrote: »

I think most people know and 'get' the NFLs player policy and maybe a few others see it for the vague policy that it is (just my opinion).

No one wants a player from their favourite team to be an ass away from the field, but I have always found this notion of players having to be 'professional' 24/7 to be blatantly unrealistic and perhaps distinctively American.

Contrast the media of about 50 years ago who largely limited their criticism to actual sporting matters, to today's windbags who are not even sports journalists/fans who want to butt in on these matters!

Whether we agree with it or not the 24/7 policy is part of their contracts and these players know that when they sign their contracts. It is a typically American thing when it comes to Pro sportsmen and women but give it a few years and it will filter through other sports.

The bottom line as unrealistic as it is those players sign a contract agreeing to these rules. They break them well then they make themselves liable under the eyes of the NFL. Such is life. You want to play in any professional body you gots to follow their rules.

eagle eye

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

And Eagle Eye this isn't about whether or not guilt comes into it. He simple broke a simple Conduct rule and now the NFL are making a big deal about player conducts. Ben deserves his ban and Im one of the people who said I wont call him a rapist or say he was guilty of anything until he is convicted in court. But When it comes to the rule he put his signature to he clearly broke it.

You still have to protect the innocent though.

What could happen now is that its not safe for an NFL player to go for a drink in a bar, think about it he cannot go the the toilet on his own for fear of an accusation being made. I mean its going to make it so easy for a couple of dregs to get an easy payday. They just ring the local media and say that something happened in the bathroom with a famous NFL player. Guy seeks advice and is likely told to pay them off because its not worth risking getting an NFL conduct policy ban which could end up in losses of millions depending on the player/length of ban.

There has to be a line somewhere and right now there doesn't seem to be any line that protects the players.

tallaghtoutlaws

eagle eye wrote: »

You still have to protect the innocent though.

What could happen now is that its not safe for an NFL player to go for a drink in a bar, think about it he cannot go the the toilet on his own for fear of an accusation being made. I mean its going to make it so easy for a couple of dregs to get an easy payday. They just ring the local media and say that something happened in the bathroom with a famous NFL player. Guy seeks advice and is likely told to pay them off because its not worth risking getting an NFL conduct policy ban which could be millions depending on the player.

You seriously are missing the point of the rule. Protect the innocent? Do you think the NFL just hand out the ban without questioning the player first? Or talking to those with him or getting their facts straight? They sit down with the player and they interview him and they investigate any claims made against their players. They don just hand the ban out.

The simple fact a lot of you are saying Ben should not have been banned by the NFL. In fairness yes he should have. He acted like a tit its that simple. His behaviour that night before he even got accused of the assault was already most likely in breach of the ruling. The dumbass brought lots of attention on himself acted like a tit and then get accused of rape. To even put yourself in any of those situations means you most likely broke the rule already.

Its not even about being innocent or guilty with regards to the rape. That is not the factor in the NFL judgment Goddell clearly stated that. He clearly said Ben's behaviour that night broke the rule.

Had Ben not acted like a tit that night before being accused I guarantee he wouldn't be banned right now. But its hard for the NFL to ignore all the photos and witness accounts of his behaviour all night. In fact had he been more civil a lot more people might believe his story more than they do now.

tallaghtoutlaws

eagle eye wrote: »

They just ring the local media and say that something happened in the bathroom with a famous NFL player. Guy seeks advice and is likely told to pay them off because its not worth risking getting an NFL conduct policy ban which could end up in losses of millions depending on the player/length of ban.

See again you are missing the point. If he did nothing wrong and his conduct that night was civil and he has witnesses to the fact he was civil the NFL wont ban him on the Accusation alone. Did you read Goddells statement at all? No one will advise players to pay out if they are innocent. That accusation willbe dealt with by the law. And the NFL will then investigate the players conduct leading up to the accusation. They will hardly ban him if he done nothing wrong even if investigated by the law.

tallaghtoutlaws

Just to add to this Roger Goodell for me covers his reasons why. Eagle Eye notice the bit in bold.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d817bc9ab&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

NEW YORK -- The NFL can increase its six-game suspension of Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger if new evidence of misbehavior emerges that violates its personal-conduct policy.

Commissioner Roger Goodell handed down the punishment after prosecutors decided not to charge Roethlisberger in a case involving a 20-year-old female college student who accused him of sexually assaulting her in a Georgia nightclub last month. Roethlisberger also must undergo a comprehensive behavioral evaluation by professionals.

Goodell said Friday at his annual session with Associated Press Sports Editors that the conduct policy allows him to revisit the ban, announced earlier this week. If evidence of other incidents is presented, "the penalty still has some flexibility," Goodell said.



For more on the Pittsburgh Steelers, check out the latest
from our bloggers.

In explaining why he acted even though no criminal charges were filed against the quarterback, Goodell said:

"It's my responsibility to protect our reputation and our integrity. That's what the personal-conduct policy is; we all have to be held to a higher standard. It specifically states you don't have to violate the law if there is a pattern of behavior."

"We go back through all the incidents and try to understand if there is any kind of pattern, and we have enough information to believe he's not making sound judgments at critical points."


A two-time Super Bowl winner, Roethlisberger also is being sued by a woman who accused him of raping her at a Lake Tahoe hotel-casino in 2008. He denied the allegation and wasn't charged. He is the first player suspended by Goodell under the conduct policy who hasn't been arrested or charged with a crime.

"First, as a league, we rely on our credibility for acceptance with our public," Goodell said. "The integrity of the game and people participating in it is a critical element. Second, protection of our brand. It reflects poorly on our brand. That's why everyone came together to strengthen our policy years ago to make certain we keep that high standard."

Roethlisberger, who stands to lose more than $2.8 million in salary because of the suspension, can't attend team activities until he has been cleared by the league, based on the outcome of his evaluation.

Goodell also said:

» A labor agreement with the players is essential for the sport to grow. He cited the lack of new stadium projects since the current collective bargaining agreement was reached in 2006, just before he replaced Paul Tagliabue as commissioner.

The owners opted out of that deal two years ago, and a work stoppage is possible in 2011; the contract expires in early March.

Any new CBA could include a salary cap or have a setup similar to this season, in which there is no cap and free agency for veterans begins after six seasons.

» Expanded rosters have been discussed with the union should the regular-season schedule be stretched to 18 games. Two preseason games would be dropped. However, everything is dependent on a new contract.

» The league is considering developing better pads for players. In recent years, he said players were wearing less padding and defensive lineman might be using quarterback pads, which are smaller and often not as protective. Goodell has spoken with NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith about the issue.

Goodell also expressed concern about properly fitting helmets, noting that the league addressed the issue of improperly fastened chinstraps a few years ago because too many helmets were flying off players' heads.

» The NFL will continue to be proactive in dealing with concussions, keeping a "very conservative approach" to when a player is allowed to return to action.

"Medical will always override competitive issues," Goodell said.

eagle eye

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Just to add to this Roger Goodell for me covers his reasons why. Eagle Eye notice the bit in bold.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d817bc9ab&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

I only seen this now. Tell me than why he didn't ban Tom Cable? or are coaches not part of that 'we' he mentions there?

Oh and Goodell has advised the Steelers & Ben Roethlisbeger that he is cleared to return to team activities next week.

tallaghtoutlaws

eagle eye wrote: »

I only seen this now. Tell me than why he didn't ban Tom Cable? or are coaches not part of that 'we' he mentions there?

Wow really. I thought this had been done and complete.

But I don't know why don't you get on a plane book a meeting with Goodell and bloody ask him? Other than speculate none of us will ever know why. He gave his reasons for banning Big Ben in that piece so that to me explains it. So unless you want to talk conspiracies or maybe double standards. Or maybe Coaches are not affected by the same policies players are. Who knows who cares its old news at this point and typical of you to drag it up to make a point.

Oh and Goodell has advised the Steelers & Ben Roethlisbeger that he is cleared to return to team activities next week.

Yes but he still has a 4 game suspension which will be reviewed again at the start of the season. NFL showing big Ben some leniency or just starting to back out of their own policies. Nothing new here.

eagle eye

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Wow really. I thought this had been done and complete.

But I don't know why don't you get on a plane book a meeting with Goodell and bloody ask him? Other than speculate none of us will ever know why. He gave his reasons for banning Big Ben in that piece so that to me explains it. So unless you want to talk conspiracies or maybe double standards. Or maybe Coaches are not affected by the same policies players are. Who knows who cares its old news at this point and typical of you to drag it up to make a point.

Yes but he still has a 4 game suspension which will be reviewed again at the start of the season. NFL showing big Ben some leniency or just starting to back out of their own policies. Nothing new here.

The reason I only seen it now was because I was looking for the thread to post that Roethlisberger had been cleared to return to team activities.

The point I'm making is very valid as he says 'we' in the article and you even highlight that. If you don't care why bother to respond?

I'd rather you attack the post rather than the poster by the way.

Dohnny Jepp

It was stated on the nfl network by a few of the lads that Goodell didn't have near as much evidence and information to work on with cable which he did have with ben.

eagle eye

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

It was stated on the nfl network by a few of the lads that Goodell didn't have near as much evidence and information to work on with cable which he did have with ben.

I never heard that but fair enough if thats the case.

tallaghtoutlaws

eagle eye wrote: »

The reason I only seen it now was because I was looking for the thread to post that Roethlisberger had been cleared to return to team activities.

The point I'm making is very valid as he says 'we' in the article and you even highlight that. If you don't care why bother to respond?

I'd rather you attack the post rather than the poster by the way.

I actually attacked your post and you. You asked a question none of us can answer but only speculate on. And as you quoted me I responded to it. And as for the not caring, lol at that just because one doesn't care about something doesn't mean they don't have an opinion on it.:rolleyes:

As for the WE bit I'm sure Goodell means the NFL. But again there was never a reason as to why Cable didn't get a ban. As Dohnny Jepp has said maybe it was lack of evidence but again who knows the full story.

As the get on a plane bit I stand by it. If you really want to know why im sure Goodell and the NFL are the only ones who can answer it. So I stand by what I said.

The Sparrow

Good SI article here that does not paint Roethlisberger in a good light at all.

It was the article that was mentioned on Total Acess by Rich Eisen on Sky this afternoon.

davyjose

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Pittsburgh-Steelers-QB-Ben-Roethlisberger-suspension-reduced-to-four-games-090310

Roethlisberger gets his ban reduced, as expected. Huge boost to Pittsburgh's chances

Makes a mockery of the whole thing, IMO. Why even bother making it 6 games, with the possibility of reducing it to on good behaviour? Just ban him for 4 games FFS. He was never going to re-offend in such a short space of time, with so much attention on him.

Chucky the tree

davyjose wrote: »

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Pittsburgh-Steelers-QB-Ben-Roethlisberger-suspension-reduced-to-four-games-090310

Roethlisberger gets his ban reduced, as expected. Huge boost to Pittsburgh's chances

Makes a mockery of the whole thing, IMO. Why even bother making it 6 games, with the possibility of reducing it to on good behaviour? Just ban him for 4 games FFS. He was never going to re-offend in such a short space of time, with so much attention on him.

I'd say it's more to do with the fact he attended all the typical meetings he was forced to go to rather then just keeping out of trouble for a few months.

tallaghtoutlaws

davyjose wrote: »

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Pittsburgh-Steelers-QB-Ben-Roethlisberger-suspension-reduced-to-four-games-090310

Roethlisberger gets his ban reduced, as expected. Huge boost to Pittsburgh's chances

Makes a mockery of the whole thing, IMO. Why even bother making it 6 games, with the possibility of reducing it to on good behaviour? Just ban him for 4 games FFS. He was never going to re-offend in such a short space of time, with so much attention on him.

Well the original talk of the ban said 6 games but could be down to 4 on good behaviour. Just like any jail sentence really 25 to life maximum life min 25 on good behaviour etc etc.

The Sparrow

The problem is that with Leftwich now seemingly injured, we may be in real trouble by game 5 unless Dixon can step up majorly.

Roethlisberger will be back on Oct 17th for the game against Cleveland at Heinz Field. It will be interesting to hear the reaction of the Steelers' fans towards him.

davyjose

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'd say it's more to do with the fact he attended all the typical meetings he was forced to go to rather then just keeping out of trouble for a few months.

As if the Steelers (the franchise paying him millions of dollars a year) would allow him not to. My point being, it seems like a drama-filled way of banning the guy for four games -- just say "you're banned for four games", instead of making it "maybe six, maybe four", and making it a summer long soap opera. The NFL have done exactly what Brett Favre gets so much crap over, tbh.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Well the original talk of the ban said 6 games but could be down to 4 on good behaviour. Just like any jail sentence really 25 to life maximum life min 25 on good behaviour etc etc.

Yeah, good behaviour meaning "refraining from being a toe-rag for a few weeks" :rolleyes::D
This decision has rescued the Steelers season, IMO. And if I were a Miami, or (particularly) a cleveland fan, I'd be questioning why.

Let's be honest, it was a four game ban, dressed up as a six game ban, to increase media interest.

davyjose

The Sparrow wrote: »

Roethlisberger will be back on Oct 17th for the game against Cleveland at Heinz Field. It will be interesting to hear the reaction of the Steelers' fans towards him.

I'd say they'll be 1-3, and very happy to see him.

The Sparrow

davyjose wrote: »

I'd say they'll be 1-3, and very happy to see him.

They may be 1-3 or worse but I don't see Steelers fans going crazy to see him in the way they would if it was another crucial player coming back from injury. Obviously from a football point of view, we will need him. But that doesn't mean he will be liked and cheered like other players would be.

I expect a fairly muted response at the very least to Roethlisberger. Remember it is as much his fault if we go 1-3 or whatever because he put himself in the position to get banned.

I'd love it if Dixon really stepped up and built on the promise of last year and I think anything more than 1-3 is a big achievement. 2-2 or even 3-1 would be a spectacular achievement.