Should the NHL follow in the footsteps of the NFL regarding new domestic abuse policy - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

King Theo · 08-29-2014, 07:32 AM

I think that it is a good rule and it cover all NFL personal not just players. I was surprised to see the NFL saying life time for the 2nd time, but I like it. Good on them.

If the NHL wanted to follow suit (and they should) the 1st time should be about 30 games to match the NFL, that puts them in the range of 37% of the season.

Journey17 · 08-29-2014, 07:39 AM

I think that there are some differences in the leagues that should be considered, specifically in terms of the number of off field incidents every year (indicative of a potential "culture" challenge). However, I don't think that sending a strong message that off field incidents matter is a wrong policy. At this point in time, I believe that case by case decision making is fine as long as it clear to everyone that all criminal behaviour risks your employment (e.g. DUIs, assaults, etc). Players should be accountable for their actions.

I like that the NFL covered all personnel (coaches, management, etc) and not just players so that there is the same standard of behavior applied.

foshizzle11 · 08-29-2014, 07:52 AM

I agree there needs to be strict penalties for this. I like the penalty for the 1st offense, ie missing about 30 games without pay if you are convicted and a possible lifetime ban for a 2nd conviction.

Those kinds of people need to be punished and don't deserve to make millions doing something they love. Case by case for the 2nd offense is perfectly reasonable.

undercoverbrother · 08-29-2014, 07:53 AM

I have no problem with this policy.

There is no excuse for domestic abuse, non at all.

Good for you NFL.

Poe969 · 08-29-2014, 08:00 AM

I think they should just for the PR as I don't really see this as an issue in the NHL, this way if it does ever happen (and is proven) there are clear cut rules and punishments previously established. I think the NFL had to do it because it seemed to be happening every second week. You can't have guys who people worship, making millions of dollars thinking they're above the law. The players reflect the league they're in and the league has to show they have morals.

In cases like Valamov's where it just seemed to be a money hungry ex gf and lawyer, the league should do what they can to help the player out to re-establish their image.

FlamesAddiction · 08-29-2014, 08:08 AM

The problem I have with it is that the punishment is also detrimental to the victims. If their spouse loses income then basically they do as well as not every domestic assault case ends in permanent separation. Even if it did, it could effect any financial settlement.

Itse · 08-29-2014, 08:21 AM

Much as I oppose violence in general and domestic violence specifically, I don't think lifetime bans are a good idea.

Suspensions, sure.

Corporations should try to steer away from taking the role of a justice system, even if it's somewhat unavoidable in sports I think. But it's not a practice that should in general be encouraged.

Robbob · 08-29-2014, 08:23 AM

In the NFL they also had to do it because the optics of a pot smoker getting a bigger suspension then a player that beats his wife is horrible. The whole Ray Rice and Josh Gordon thing left egg on their face.

For the record I have no problem if they did this to convicted abusers.

Arya Stark · 08-29-2014, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The problem I have with it is that the punishment is also detrimental to the victims. If their spouse loses income then basically they do as well as not every domestic assault case ends in permanent separation. Even if it did, it could effect any financial settlement.

Which is why I disagree with a lifetime ban. It could possibly effect the victim more than the accused.

If I was being abused and I knew my husband had one strike with the NFL, I probably wouldn't report it in fear of him not being able to earn the big dollars and in turn effect me financially. It's a slippery slope imo.

Weitz · 08-29-2014, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

Which is why I disagree with a lifetime ban. It could possibly effect the victim more than the accused.

If I was being abused and I knew my husband had one strike with the NFL, I probably wouldn't report it in fear of him not being able to earn the big dollars and in turn effect me financially. It's a slippery slope imo.

So you would stay with a guy who beats you so you can keep your shiny things?

Arya Stark · 08-29-2014, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weitz

So you would stay with a guy who beats you so you can keep your shiny things?

That's not what I said at all. You know she can still leave and still be owed money right? Child support payments would take a pretty big hit if he wasn't working as a pro NFLer. And lots of women do stay for the financial security so yeah some might. The term "Battered woman syndrome" exists for a reason.

Lonestar · 08-29-2014, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbob

In the NFL they also had to do it because the optics of a pot smoker getting a bigger suspension then a player that beats his wife is horrible. The whole Ray Rice and Josh Gordon thing left egg on their face.

For the record I have no problem if they did this to convicted abusers.

While I do think Ray Rice's suspension is well on the short side of what most would consider to be justifiable punishment for the offense, I believe the Josh Gordon case is completely separate.

This is the 3rd time Gordon has tested positive for marijuana, violating the NFLs substance abuse policy that was collectively bargained by the NFLPA. (I'm sorry I don't currently have a link, I'm writing this on my phone and don't know how to paste links yet). 4th time if you count his troubles at Baylor. He then comes out with some "secondhand smoke" argument instead of manning up and taking responsibility for his actions that are clear violations of a policy his peers agreed to. His year-long suspension is right on par IMO.

I do agree the NFLs new stance and I hope it has an effect on the players' actions in the future. Sorry to de-rail with the Gordon thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Daradon · 08-29-2014, 12:43 PM

I have no problem with the policy. The only sad thing is that policies like this need to be implemented and aren't common sense. To me it's a real 'duh' moment to suspend or fire anyone convicted of serious violence.

As for what the OP said about a policy like this perhaps dissuading romantic partners from reporting incidents, I could see how that might be a small problem. Some people do get stuck in that trap. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try and punish offenders. Victims need to be responsible too and bring justice to the offenders if we are to tackle this problem. Yes, you want to make it as easy as possible for them to report things like this, but that doesn't include not punishing the perpetrator.

The flip side to your argument is that while a handful of abuse victims may not pursue charges because of this new rule, it has the possibility of doing more good than harm by showing this type of behavior will not be tolerated. By other players, by the league, by the fans. It supports the victims who do have the bravery to stand up for themselves, and it shows violent men they better go work on their issues cause it won't be tolerated.

Resolute 14 · 08-29-2014, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

They still have the choice though, that should not be taken away. I also think it is unlikely the players union allows this to go through

The NHLPA is far stronger than its' football counterpart, so that is an issue. At the same time, do the players really want to be viewed as excusing (at best) or condoning (at worst) domestic violence? Blocking such a proposal would be a PR landmine.

Ultimately, I have no issue with suspending players convicted of such crimes. But not when they are charged.

PeteMoss · 08-29-2014, 12:50 PM

Much more of an issue in the NFL so not really on the radar in the NHL.

I would like to see at least some kind of suspension for off-ice issues - i.e. DUI, abuse, assaults, etc.

edslunch · 08-29-2014, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

If teams want to blacklist a player and not sign them fine, but the league mandating a lifetime ban is akin to the government saying you can't hire criminals. Every company/team should be able to make the choice for themselves.

Every league should be able to make that choice for themselves. Bad stuff that happens anywhere in the league tarnishes the league as much or more than the team in question

JMN · 08-29-2014, 01:04 PM

Goodell is the best commissioner in sports and I think these punishments would be great in the NHL. The lifetime ban will probably be rare but it's good that it's there; think War Machine type of situation.

Arya Stark · 08-29-2014, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMN

Goodell is the best commissioner in sports and I think these punishments would be great in the NHL. The lifetime ban will probably be rare but it's good that it's there; think War Machine type of situation.

If he was the best commissioner in sports it wouldn't have taken huge backlash for him to get this right.

flamesfever · 08-29-2014, 02:04 PM

I agree that it doesn't seem to be an issue with the NHL. In general, I think anyone convicted of a criminal offence should suffer some degree of censure or punishment by the league, depending on the severity of the crime. However, I think singling out physical abuse, where other crimes are just as bad or more destructive, doesn't make sense to me.

I'd be surprised if the NHLPA went along with it.