Arguably Darkest Week In NFL History Started by Wildcats Uni

[oldecapecod11]

Arguably Darkest Week In NFL History Started by Wildcats Unite
Started by Wildcats Unite, Sep 12 2014 07:49 PM

Archive

Page 1 of 4

66 replies to this topic

#1 Wildcats Unite
Forum Visitors
Posted 12 September 2014 - 07:49 PM
I'm not sure that I agree with CBS announcer Jim Nantz, who says that this was the "arguably darkest week In NFL history." From a public

relations/news cycle perspective, maybe, but the negativity has nothing to do with anything that happened on the field. From the perspective as a

fan, the strike seasons were dismal, especially with scabs suiting up. Anytime a player was paralyzed on the field, that's dark and sad.

What are your opinions?

#2 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 12 September 2014 - 07:57 PM
Wildcats Unite, on 12 Sept 2014 - 7:49 PM, said:
I'm not sure that I agree with CBS announcer Jim Nantz, who says that this was the "arguably darkest week In NFL history." From a public

relations/news cycle perspective, maybe, but the negativity has nothing to do with anything that happened on the field. From the perspective as a

fan, the strike seasons were dismal, especially with scabs suiting up. Anytime a player was paralyzed on the field, that's dark and sad.

What are your opinions?
Saying it on the anniversary of 9/11, no less. That horrific day resulted in the league postponing an entire week's worth of games--which hadn't

happened since the AFL had done it in November 1963.


#3 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 12 September 2014 - 08:41 PM
Probably.

#4 NWebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:08 PM
At the risk of being seen as 1)calous, 2) misogynist I'm really upset at Ray Rice, Kevin Hardy and now Adrian Peterson for taking away the piece of

joy I love in a life that is very good but otherwise involves 1) a job that's frustrating, 2) fun family problems, and all that crap, etc. I love this game.

2014 might be ruined (i hope not and that this passes) because I cannot watch it without hearing about all this crap.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I love the game for what it is - beautiful, and for what its not. But that's been infiltrated, and it makes me sad.

The kids phrase TMI comes to mind, but certainly part of our love of the game is as an escape, no?

#5 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:29 PM
Only would be 'darkest' because of today's media and society (24 hrs, internet, social networks, etc) ...

Numerous people get arrested and do bad things, whether they play football, work at a bank, deliver pizza, etc... Their job isn't important to me and

doesn't drive my amount of care.

It was annoying that on Monday I wanted to watch NFLN for injury updates, highlights, coaches press conferences, etc ... like a normal Monday

during the season, and instead it was non-stop (literally) Ray Rice coverage. The word Nick used applies, infiltrated.

Though as annoying as not being able to see football coverage/pre-game/etc without it being all about Ray Rice (and today Peterson), the thing that

caused me to spill my drink this week was the roughing the passer call last night . . .

#6 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:44 PM
Reaser,

It was dark because of the negative press for the league and, love him or hate him, Roger Goodell's future as league commissioner has been

questioned. I don't ever remember a week where the NFL had so much negativity surrounding it. I never remember a NFL commissioner's

employment status being discussed in this way.

The hit on Ben Roethlisberger was perfectly fine last night. Unfortunately, Ed Hochuli (who has sucked for a half decade now) thought he saw

something that did not actually happen. I have to think that is what happened because if he saw what happened and still threw a flag, then the league

might as well just put red jerseys on the quarterbacks and not allow them to be tackled.

#7 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 12 September 2014 - 10:13 PM
JWL, on 12 Sept 2014 - 9:44 PM, said:
Reaser,

It was dark because of the negative press for the league and, love him or hate him, Roger Goodell's future as league commissioner has been

questioned. I don't ever remember a week where the NFL had so much negativity surrounding it. I never remember a NFL commissioner's

employment status being discussed in this way.

The hit on Ben Roethlisberger was perfectly fine last night. Unfortunately, Ed Hochuli (who has sucked for a half decade now) thought he saw

something that did not actually happen. I have to think that is what happened because if he saw what happened and still threw a flag, then the league

might as well just put red jerseys on the quarterbacks and not allow them to be tackled.
and all of that is because of today's society, news, etc ... in the 90's it may have been a side story on the news, the commissioner wouldn't have

been doing news show interviews, no one would have been tweeting, the million 'rights' groups wouldn't have the same voice, the political pressure,

the hype, etc... All because of 'today' ... which I hate Goodell, so good, I hope he does lose his job, he's a disgrace to football. Speaking strictly on

coverage though, it's only the 'darkest' because it happened in 2014 and not 1994, not saying that as a positive or negative, just as what it is.

Phil Simms agreed with the call, I'm sure on "official review" it'll be confirmed as a "good call", and that will just infuriate me even more.

#8 JohnMaxymuk
PFRA Member
Posted 12 September 2014 - 10:53 PM
Dan Daly quoted Art Donovan saying that 1950s football was played by "oversize coal miners and West Texas psychopaths." I imagine several of

those guys did some pretty awful things off the field, too. The thing is, though, I don't imagine it because my focus is on this beautiful game as Nick

put it. Football combines intelligence, strategy, grace, brawn, power in an arena of controlled violence, and I think that overflowing amalgamation is

its appeal to most of us.

Sports media people often don't seem to really love the game; they'd rather be seen as sophisticated social commentators (or over the top

personalities in many cases). I am sorry that the Rices have such a mutually destructive relationship, but it has nothing to do with the game. I'm with

Reaser in that the mass media is overwhelming in its destructive self serving stupidity, but don't let it get your dauber down as they used to say.

Focus on the game; block out the rest.

And BTW Matt, to me that was a form tackle on big ben.

#9 NWebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 12 September 2014 - 11:15 PM
Reaser, on 12 Sept 2014 - 9:29 PM, said:
Only would be 'darkest' because of today's media and society (24 hrs, internet, social networks, etc) ...
Numerous people get arrested and do bad things, whether they play football, work at a bank, deliver pizza, etc... Their job isn't important to me and

doesn't drive my amount of care.
It was annoying that on Monday I wanted to watch NFLN for injury updates, highlights, coaches press conferences, etc ... like a normal Monday

during the season, and instead it was non-stop (literally) Ray Rice coverage. The word Nick used applies, infiltrated.
Though as annoying as not being able to see football coverage/pre-game/etc without it being all about Ray Rice (and today Peterson), the thing that

caused me to spill my drink this week was the roughing the passer call last night . . .

Steeler fan, worst roughing the passer the call in the history of the NFL.

#10 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 12:40 AM
So, who will hire Ray Rice in a few years to discuss football- ESPN, CBS, NBC, FOX or NFLN?

#11 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:14 AM
Reaser, on 12 Sept 2014 - 10:13 PM, said:
and all of that is because of today's society, news, etc ... in the 90's it may have been a side story on the news, the commissioner wouldn't have

been doing news show interviews, no one would have been tweeting, the million 'rights' groups wouldn't have the same voice, the political pressure,

the hype, etc... All because of 'today' ... which I hate Goodell, so good, I hope he does lose his job, he's a disgrace to football. Speaking strictly on

coverage though, it's only the 'darkest' because it happened in 2014 and not 1994, not saying that as a positive or negative, just as what it is.

Phil Simms agreed with the call, I'm sure on "official review" it'll be confirmed as a "good call", and that will just infuriate me even more.
Well, yeah, the media added to the problems. Roger Goodell started it, though. We knew in the winter that Ray Rice had punched a woman in an

elevator and knocked her out. We saw video of her lying unconscious and being dragged outside an elevator.

Rice was later suspended for 2 games.

Rice should have received a 4 or 6-game suspension. Then a video was released this week and Goodell changed Rice's suspension. Goodell

changed the suspension because he said what he saw was worse than what Rice told him had happened. I am wondering what Goodell thought

happened prior to seeing the full video. Did he think the woman was knocked unconscious accidentally?

Then we have the 49ers suspending an announcer for commenting on the Rice fiasco while they continue to let their domestically violent player Ray

McDonald play.

#12 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:20 AM
JWL, on 13 Sept 2014 - 12:40 AM, said:
So, who will hire Ray Rice in a few years to discuss football- ESPN, CBS, NBC, FOX or NFLN?

Where else will somebody of his reputation be accepted except for the rap music community.

I find it hard to believe that Ray Rice will ever be employed in the NFL again. He might wind up in the CFL, but I think any NFL team who hires him

will have women's groups picketing and protesting, and they don't want that.

While I find Rice's behavior disgusting, and appalling, and I would never condone hitting a woman under any circumstances, I don't understand how

this is considered far, far worse than what Michael Vick did. Vick was allowed back into the NFL after a couple years while I would be very

surprised if any NFL team would pick Rice up in the future. Is it because there wasn't a video showing Michael Vick doing what he did? Just

because there wasn't a film of Vick's actions available doesn't mean it wasn't just as hideous as we all know it had to be.

As far as the effect that this will have on the 2014 NFL season, I find that I just change the channel if they are talking about Ray Rice, it won't get to

me.


#13 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:28 AM
Agree with all of the above about the media.

What gets me is the extreme language used by members of the media to describe Rice - much stronger than was used to describe OJ or Rae

Carruth. When you use that kind of language for Rice, then what does that leave you to describe guys who hit their wives two or three times?

#14 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:30 AM
JWL, on 13 Sept 2014 - 01:14 AM, said:
Well, yeah, the media added to the problems....
Maybe we're talking about two different things. I'm saying the only reason is because it's 2014. Again, if this was 1994, 1984, etc and the commish

at the time gave 2 games no one would care because society and the media was different.

Agree on the video changing things when it really shouldn't have been needed. Doesn't make sense to me either, literally everyone knew he knocked

her out so the video shouldn't have even been needed to make an acceptable decision (which 2 games obviously was not) ... Also goes to Rupert's

point - though I disagree that killing animals is worse than KO'ing a female, regardless - about Vick. We know what Vick did, shouldn't need the

video to determine the punishment.

When Josh Brent returns later this season (after DUI led to death of teammate) he'll have missed less time than Vick. So I'm not sure Vick got off

light at all, he served more time than people who kill other people, and he lost more of his NFL career than people who drive drunk and kill other

people.

I suppose people can disagree on such things, but it goes back to Goodell and consistency and credibility, which he has neither of.

Either way, I'm always one who cares about what happens on the field, off the field I only care about roster moves and such things. As I originally

said, people do bad things in all professions, there's someone KO'ing a female as I type this, where's the coverage of that? Doesn't matter to media

or society because a football player didn't do it . . .


#15 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 05:23 AM
Yeah, this stuff happens to all types of people.

The only thing I will mention about Vick is that he is being used to sell Cure auto insurance. He is in a dopey commercial. Curtis Granderson is in

another one. It is possible these are local commercials because I think I only see these on SNY. I am amazed that Vick was able to get any

endorsements.

#16 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 08:37 AM
Reaser, on 13 Sept 2014 - 01:30 AM, said:
When Josh Brent returns later this season (after DUI led to death of teammate) he'll have missed less time than Vick. So I'm not sure Vick got off

light at all, he served more time than people who kill other people, and he lost more of his NFL career than people who drive drunk and kill other

people.


On the other hand, Donte Stallworth did a grand total of 24 days in county jail for hitting and killing a pedestrian while driving with a blood alcohol

level of 0.12, although he was suspended for the entire 2009 NFL season, but he was back the next season and won the Ed Block Courage Award.

Nowadays, Stallworth (who was a 9/11 truther by the way) is a national security correspondent for the Huffington Post.


#17 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 10:02 AM
But, but, but; if, if, if; when, when, when; c'mon, it is a horrid crime that will result in a comparatively light slap on the wrist.
As someone said: he'll soon be an analyst.
Let's face it. If it would increase revenue, Willie Sutton would be selling ADT systems and Jesse James would be an AMTRAK spokesman.

Please remember: not only Dracula is noted for his bites. We had Mike Tyson and Marv Albert.
At least Mike did in it the ring.

Sexual assault charges
Albert became the focus of a media frenzy in 1997, when he went on trial for felony charges of forcible sodomy. A 42-year-old woman named

Vanessa Perhach accused Albert of throwing her on a bed, biting her, and forcing her to perform oral sex after a February 12, 1997 argument in

his Pentagon City hotel room. DNA testing linked Albert to genetic material taken from the bite marks and from semen in Perhach's underwear.

During the trial, testimony was presented from another woman, Patricia Masden, who told the jury that Albert had bitten her on two different

occasions in 1993 and 1994 in Miami and Dallas hotels, which she viewed as unwanted sexual advances. Masden claimed that in Dallas, Albert

called her to his hotel room to help him send a fax, only for her to find him wearing "white panties and garter belt." Albert maintained that Perhach

had requested that he bite her and denied her accusation that he'd asked her to bring another man into their sexual affair. He described the

recorded conversation of hers with the police on the night of the incident "an Academy Award performance." After tests proved that the bite marks

were his, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and battery charges, while the sodomy charge was dropped. Albert was given a 12-month

suspended sentence.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Marv_Albert

And, before you run and hide, try to type Chappaquiddick without spellcheck. I bet you can't.
Punishment: 1 year suspension of license to drive.

Edited to add colon (no pun)

#18 conace21
Forum Visitors
Posted 13 September 2014 - 10:08 AM
Part of the reason Stallworth had a light sentence was that the pedestrian crossed a causeway outside of a crosswalk. Traffic video also apparently

showed Stallworth breaking as soon as the man stepped in the road. Could Stallworth have avoided hitting him, if he was sober? Perhaps, but

impossible to say for sure.

#19 Citizen
Forum Visitors
Posted 13 September 2014 - 11:09 AM
It's threads like this that illustrate why the stranglehold the NFL has on America's consciousness will never subside. I love football, but I don't prize it

over the welfare of human beings, whether they're players, their spouses or their kids. If an NFL superstar beats one of his kids bloody or knocks

his fiancee unconscious, I want to know about it. I don't care if it impacts whatever "escape" value I (or you) get from the game. I appreciate having

the misdeeds of these brutes brought out into the light of day. I consider that reporting to be a public service, and I hope the scorn it brings is a

deterrent to other players (or anyone) who thinks about beating a child.

I don't look at a time when these things went unreported to be "the good old days," I see those times as a dark period when lots of bad people got

away with lots of bad behavior. If you're going to get mad at somebody for putting a cloud over your NFL fantasy world, shouldn't Rice, Peterson, et

al., be a bit higher on the list than the news media? Blaming the messenger strikes me as a bit short-sighted, to say the least.


#20 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 12:31 PM
Citizen, on 13 Sept 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:
It's threads like this that illustrate why the stranglehold the NFL has on America's consciousness will never subside. I love football, but I don't prize it

over the welfare of human beings, whether they're players, their spouses or their kids. If an NFL superstar beats one of his kids bloody or knocks

his fiancee unconscious, I want to know about it. I don't care if it impacts whatever "escape" value I (or you) get from the game. I appreciate having

the misdeeds of these brutes brought out into the light of day. I consider that reporting to be a public service, and I hope the scorn it brings is a

deterrent to other players (or anyone) who thinks about beating a child.

I don't look at a time when these things went unreported to be "the good old days," I see those times as a dark period when lots of bad people got

away with lots of bad behavior. If you're going to get mad at somebody for putting a cloud over your NFL fantasy world, shouldn't Rice, Peterson, et

al., be a bit higher on the list than the news media? Blaming the messenger strikes me as a bit short-sighted, to say the least.
Yes, the players are the biggest turds here. The league and the media are lesser problems, but still problems.

I also like seeing these players get punished and do not pine for olden times when this stuff wasn't reported as much.

Page 1 of 4

''Arguably Darkest Week In NFL History"?
Started by Wildcats Unite, Sep 12 2014 07:49 PM

Page 2 of 4

#21 NWebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:00 PM
Citizen, on 13 Sept 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:
It's threads like this that illustrate why the stranglehold the NFL has on America's consciousness will never subside. I love football, but I don't prize it

over the welfare of human beings, whether they're players, their spouses or their kids. If an NFL superstar beats one of his kids bloody or knocks

his fiancee unconscious, I want to know about it. I don't care if it impacts whatever "escape" value I (or you) get from the game. I appreciate having

the misdeeds of these brutes brought out into the light of day. I consider that reporting to be a public service, and I hope the scorn it brings is a

deterrent to other players (or anyone) who thinks about beating a child.

I don't look at a time when these things went unreported to be "the good old days," I see those times as a dark period when lots of bad people got

away with lots of bad behavior. If you're going to get mad at somebody for putting a cloud over your NFL fantasy world, shouldn't Rice, Peterson, et

al., be a bit higher on the list than the news media? Blaming the messenger strikes me as a bit short-sighted, to say the least.

I guess I view it differently, we have a criminal justice system for a reason. Roger Goodell is no replacement for a judge, two lawyers, and a jury of

your peers.

yes, in this case, there's no question something horrible happened. But we should be angry at Goodell, and it should be a football conversation. How

does a DA let that go - oh, she said its all ok, she's a battered woman, what do you expect??

Different issues are being mixed here. Does your dry cleaner beat his wife, should he not be allowed to dry clean clothes? How about your mail

man? And on and on. We expect in all kinds of jobs that people get their punishment by the judicial system and then were dealing with people who've

paid their penalty. Why should the NFL be different. We should be upset that the judicial process didn't work, not that Goodell didn't do a good job. If

my mail man got away with something that the judicial system should have punished more I'm not upset at the lost master general.

#22 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:30 PM
NWebster, on 13 Sept 2014 - 1:00 PM, said:
Does your dry cleaner beat his wife, should he not be allowed to dry clean clothes? How about your mail man? And on and on.
This is along the lines of what I was trying to say with news coverage. The media doesn't cover or care about "mail man in small town hits his wife"

because that headline doesn't sell. The people that like to use others doing bad things to put themselves up on a pedestal need the downfall of a

celebrity/public figure, and the media need the same to sell it.

The media isn't going full blast on Ray Rice because they're good people, they're doing it because it sells, maybe I'm just different because that

doesn't sell to me? As I posted earlier, if someone hits their wife whatever their job is doesn't determine my amount of care.

If it was a mail man the general public wouldn't care, the media wouldn't care, and a majority of people would have no other response than to shrug

and say "who?", as opposed to "that's horrible" . . . That's my issue, DV is only a story if it's a public figure/athlete/celebrity and people eat it up so

they can feel all warm and fuzzy inside and say to themselves; "(public figure A) is in trouble, that means he's not better than me, everyone look at

how good of a person I am!" ... it's ridiculous. You either care or you don't, don't just (pretend to) 'care' because it involves someone (public figure)

you think you know.

As an aside, never viewed or really understood the saying of using football as an escape. It's an everyday thing for me and I don't want to escape.

It's a major part of my life: family, friends and football. The escape is when I watch a movie or a tv show.

Yes Nick, people should care a lot more about the judicial process failure. That's boring and doesn't sell though . . .

#23 mwald
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:37 PM
I do view it as one of the darkest weeks in the league. Even when real football returned on Thursday it involved the Ravens. It seems like the Gods

are playing a cruel joke.

That said, I blame the media entirely for their lack of perspective. Two Americans were recently beheaded and the number one story in the country

is whether a sports commissioner should step down?

Call it my two-bit attempt at pop psychology but maybe manufacturing a huge story out of a smaller one is the only way we as a society can deal

with those horrible, gruesome images.


#24 coach tj troup
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:41 PM
....realize I represent the dinosaur contingent....so take this for what it is worth. one of the frosh asked me about ray rice on the practice field on

wednesday. my response, in your future when you marry, treasure her, and treat her right. now, tell me your responsibility on zone under coverage.

we all have thoughts about what goes on, yet my choice is to teach the game, and write about the history of the game.


#25 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:46 PM
mwald, on 13 Sept 2014 - 1:37 PM, said:
I blame the media entirely for their lack of perspective. Two Americans were recently beheaded and the number one story in the country is whether

a sports commissioner should step down?
This.

coach tj troup, on 13 Sept 2014 - 1:41 PM, said:
in your future when you marry, treasure her, and treat her right. now, tell me your responsibility on zone under coverage.
and this.

#26 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 02:18 PM
NWebster
Posted Today, 01:00 PM
Citizen, on 13 Sept 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:
"It's threads like this that illustrate why ... into the light of day. I consider that reporting to be a public service, and I hope the scorn it brings is a

deterrent to other players...
"If you're going to get mad at somebody for putting a cloud over your NFL fantasy world, shouldn't Rice, Peterson, et al., be a bit higher on the

list..."

"I guess I view it differently, we have a criminal justice system for a reason. Roger Goodell is no replacement for a judge, two lawyers, and a jury of

your peers.
yes, in this case, there's no question something horrible happened. But we should be angry at Goodell, and it should be a football conversation. How

does a DA let that go - oh, she said its all ok, she's a battered woman, what do you expect??
Different issues are being mixed here. Does your dry cleaner beat his wife, should he not be allowed to dry clean clothes? How about your mail

man? And on and on. We expect in all kinds of jobs that people get their punishment by the judicial system and then were dealing with people who've

paid their penalty. Why should the NFL be different. We should be upset that the judicial process didn't work, not that Goodell didn't do a good job. If

my mail man got away with something that the judicial system should have punished more I'm not upset at the lost master general."

You say you view it differently but you do not state your view?
You seem to understand the obvious: "Roger Goodell is no replacement..." but no one has implied that he is or that they expect for him to be.
If Goodell does not do everything within his power to remove this creature from a position of adulation by fans - many of whom may be children still

in their formative years - then, yes, indeed, we should be angry with Goodell.
What issues are being mixed? There is a filmed incident of a crime of violence. Is Rice to be punished or not to be punished? That is the only

question. The extent of the punishment is yet to be established so, as yet, it not an issue.
Your dry cleaner / mail man comparisons are ludicrous - unless, of course, you hold your dry cleaner and your mail man in positions of esteem to

be glorified and emulated by the young or easily influenced.
I don't see any mail man replica jerseys or dry cleaner hoodies on sale at the local stores.
('Course, admittedly, this is Florida where the backward cracker mentality has not enacted laws prohibiting sex with animals.)
While both are honorable professions, I have never heard a kid saying he wants to grow up to be like the mail man or the dry cleaner.
Those in the public spotlight should be held to greater expectations and should be excluded from such spotlights when they violate the standards of

what is, in effect, the public trust.
And, as an aside, I do not know what the current policy of the money-losing and rapidly deteriorating USPS is but when the system was still the

"Service" those government employees would likely be discharged for such actions. And, yes, in a case where there was a highly-visible film of the

crime, dismissal would not be dependent on a Court verdict.

#27 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 02:41 PM
Citizen, what has this week's media coverage told you about Ray Rice that you didn't already know? I knew everything I needed to back in

February, when the story was first reported and the video of an unconscious Janay being dragged out of an elevator and dropped on the ground

was made public.


#28 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 13 September 2014 - 03:46 PM
mwald, on 13 Sept 2014 - 1:37 PM, said:
I do view it as one of the darkest weeks in the league. Even when real football returned on Thursday it involved the Ravens. It seems like the Gods

are playing a cruel joke.

That said, I blame the media entirely for their lack of perspective. Two Americans were recently beheaded and the number one story in the country

is whether a sports commissioner should step down?

Call it my two-bit attempt at pop psychology but maybe manufacturing a huge story out of a smaller one is the only way we as a society can deal

with those horrible, gruesome images.
The beheadings have happened before (i.e. Daniel Pearl) and pretty much everyone knows the people doing it are not rational, so there's little room

for debate.

Meanwhile, you have the NFL, which is printing money and has always been anal-retentive when it comes to PR, yet have been compounding their

early mistake of the two-game suspension. The fact that the Hardy and McDonald messes play into this only magnifies the story.


#29 Todd Pence
Forum Visitors
Posted 13 September 2014 - 06:11 PM
What a ridiculous statement. This isn't even in the same class as JFK or 9/11.


#30 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 06:20 PM
Todd Pence, on 13 Sept 2014 - 6:11 PM, said:
What a ridiculous statement. This isn't even in the same class as JFK or 9/11.
The weeks in which those events occurred were dark weeks in American history in general. The NFL didn't get negative press for the President

being assassinated or the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

#31 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 13 September 2014 - 06:37 PM
JWL, on 13 Sept 2014 - 6:20 PM, said:
The weeks in which those events occurred were dark weeks in American history in general. The NFL didn't get negative press for the President

being assassinated or the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
In the case of the former, they took heat almost immediately for their decision to go ahead and play--with their rival, the AFL, getting all the PR glory.


#32 Citizen
Forum Visitors
Posted 13 September 2014 - 06:43 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 13 Sept 2014 - 2:41 PM, said:
Citizen, what has this week's media coverage told you about Ray Rice that you didn't already know? I knew everything I needed to back in

February, when the story was first reported and the video of an unconscious Janay being dragged out of an elevator and dropped on the ground

was made public.
Not sure what your point is. The emergence of the video from inside the elevator -- and the subsequent revelations about the league's knowledge of

that footage -- was a huge story.


#33 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 06:48 PM
BD Sullivan, on 13 Sept 2014 - 6:37 PM, said:
In the case of the former, they took heat almost immediately for their decision to go ahead and play--with their rival, the AFL, getting all the PR glory.

Rozelle always said his worst decision as Commissioner was in not postponing the games the weekend after JFK was assassinated.


#34 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 07:07 PM
BD Sullivan, on 13 Sept 2014 - 6:37 PM, said:
In the case of the former, they took heat almost immediately for their decision to go ahead and play--with their rival, the AFL, getting all the PR glory.
From all I have read and seen, I don't think the league was getting ripped as bad then as it was this week. One thing I don't know is if anyone was

calling for Rozelle to lose his job.

#35 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 13 September 2014 - 07:54 PM
BD Sullivan, on 13 Sept 2014 - 6:37 PM, said:
In the case of the former, they took heat almost immediately for their decision to go ahead and play--with their rival, the AFL, getting all the PR glory.

No, the criticism came in retrospect, not at the time. Sports Illustrated put Pete Rozelle on the cover a few weeks later. Why? Rozelle was being

honored as Sportsman of The Year.

BTW, I was following the NFL in 1963.


#36 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 08:36 PM
Citizen, on 13 Sept 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:
If an NFL superstar beats one of his kids bloody or knocks his fiancee unconscious, I want to know about it. I don't care if it impacts whatever

"escape" value I (or you) get from the game. I appreciate having the misdeeds of these brutes brought out into the light of day. I consider that

reporting to be a public service....

I'm talking about this. Releasing the video wasn't news. It didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. It was a "story", in the eyes of TMZ,

because it was sensational. Exactly what public service did they perform here?


#37 JuggernautJ
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 08:44 PM
How dare the NFL presume to legislate morality when its sole purpose is to generate revenue for its benefactors?
Preaching morality after selling your soul is the height of hypocrisy.

And I firmly believe the "worst" week in NFL history looms in the not too distant future as the changes in the game, wrought by greed, become

obvious to all and the NFL begins an inevitable decline.


#38 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 08:52 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 13 Sept 2014 - 8:36 PM, said:
I'm talking about this. Releasing the video wasn't news. It didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. It was a "story", in the eyes of TMZ,

because it was sensational. Exactly what public service did they perform here?
Agree 100% with this.

In other 'news', just got a "breaking news" text alert from ESPN Mobile:

"Ray Rice watches High School football game at New Rochelle, with his wife and daughter."

Public service . . .

#39 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 13 September 2014 - 09:43 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 13 Sept 2014 - 8:36 PM, said:
I'm talking about this. Releasing the video wasn't news. It didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. It was a "story", in the eyes of TMZ,

because it was sensational. Exactly what public service did they perform here?

Ray Rice is now a household name, even people who don't follow football know him as the guy who punched out his fiancee in an elevator. As

famous as he is now, I know it's only a matter of time before somebody throws him a pile of cash to be in a reality show about his domestic life.


#40 Citizen
Forum Visitors

756 posts
Posted 14 September 2014 - 10:32 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 13 Sept 2014 - 8:36 PM, said:
I'm talking about this. Releasing the video wasn't news. It didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. It was a "story", in the eyes of TMZ,

because it was sensational. Exactly what public service did they perform here?
It didn't tell us anything we hadn't already presumed. The video confirmed those presumptions, making it news. And, it was a story in the eyes of not

just TMZ but every media outlet in the United States and the hundreds of millions of people who talked about it during the week. Keep minimizing it if

that makes you feel better, but doing so is contrary to reality.

Page 2 of 4

[oldecapecod11]

''Arguably Darkest Week In NFL History"?
Started by Wildcats Unite, Sep 12 2014 07:49 PM

Page 3 of 4

66 replies to this topic

#41 slats7
Forum Visitors
Posted 14 September 2014 - 11:01 AM
Todd Pence, on 13 Sept 2014 - 6:11 PM, said:
What a ridiculous statement. This isn't even in the same class as JFK or 9/11.

You miss the point. We're talking about bad news uniquely generated by the NFL front office or its players. JFK and 9/11 were outside events that

affected the league.


#42 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 14 September 2014 - 11:39 AM
JWL, on 13 Sept 2014 - 7:07 PM, said:
One thing I don't know is if anyone was calling for Rozelle to lose his job.
If it happened in 2014, society and media today would be calling for him to lose his job.

Either way, for the thread topic, I'll say again it's only the "darkest" week because of today's media coverage and because it's happening now.

I mean really? This week is "darker" than the week of Jovan Belcher's murder/suicide? There was also a police video of releasing him prior to that

happening ... Which a couple days after that there was more CTE 'findings' (regardless of what I think about that subject, it was 'bad' news for the

NFL), oh and less than a week after Belcher, Terrell Suggs had to surrender his firearms because of a domestic accusations. Two dead, two

domestic violence issues, and the CTE issue at the same time to bring up the "death of football" talk. This was only two years ago . . .


#43 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 14 September 2014 - 12:35 PM
Citizen, on 14 Sept 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:
It didn't tell us anything we hadn't already presumed. The video confirmed those presumptions, making it news. And, it was a story in the eyes of not

just TMZ but every media outlet in the United States and the hundreds of millions of people who talked about it during the week. Keep minimizing it if

that makes you feel better, but doing so is contrary to reality.
The topic under discussion is the responsibility of the media in pumping this as a story, so saying it's a story because everyone reported it probably

isn't quite as compelling an argument as you might think.

As for me minimizing it, if that's what I'm doing then it's probably because I've prosecuted more than 500 of these cases, and in my experience, it

just isn't that serious an incident when compared to the bulk of routine domestic assaults that ho through the courts every week. Gross over

reactions by the media, characterizing Ray Rice as something seemingly akin to the Anti-Christ, make minimizing not just easy but necessary.

Grossly uninformed stories, like the ones PFT and other outlets have been running about the prosecution of Rice's case, are just laughable, and

easily dismissed. That "hundreds of millions" of people are talking about it doesn't make it news. The number of people who are drinking the Kool-

Aid doesn't magically transform it into a kale smoothie. The Kool-Aid is still poison.

#44 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 14 September 2014 - 01:49 PM
No, the criticism came in retrospect, not at the time. Sports Illustrated put Pete Rozelle on the cover a few weeks later. Why? Rozelle was being

honored as Sportsman of The Year.

BTW, I was following the NFL in 1963.

************************

Associated Press, 11/24/63

"The New York Times said in its Sunday edition that the NFL's decision to go through with its seven scheduled games 'evoked indignant reactions

from many pro football fans.'"

"The Times said 'a highly vocal minority of the callers said they were shocked, aghast, upset, ashamed or horrified that the game would go on.'"

Boston Herald, 11/25/63
"...Mister Rozelle behaved with what can be interpreted only as inexcusable callousness..."

Associated Press, 11/25/63
"NFL club spokemen admitted receiving phone calls protesting the decision to go ahead with Sunday's schedule"

San Diego Union, 11/26/63,
"Business-as-Usual Policy of NFL Rates No Applause"

Rozelle didn't help himself with this tone-deaf comment while at the Cardinals-Giants game: "I cannot feel that playing the game was disrespectful,

nor can I feel that I have made a mistake."


#45 Citizen
Forum Visitors
Posted 14 September 2014 - 01:58 PM
This is not an ordinary domestic assault case, and therefore not an ordinary news story, for two simple reasons: It involved an NFL player, and the

NFL tried to cover it up. This is a $10 billion-a-year industry, and one that's been elevated to a religion in America. When people in that industry

behave this badly, and that behavior is made public, that's news. Claiming that what Rice did is no more significant or egregious than some nobody

decking his wife in Anytown, USA, is naive and disingenuous.


#46 JohnR
PFRA Member
Posted 14 September 2014 - 02:48 PM
I'm with Rupert on the Vick comparison. If the world had witnessed the deeds he literally executed, he'd never have been allowed back in. What we

have in Ray is a single ugly incident from which a 6 game suspension was delivered. The league "moved the goal posts" simply to protect the shield.

The system has been corrupted. I don't see how Ray should receive a lifetime ban. Is he beyond rehabilitation? OK, off to anger management

counseling & public service. Maybe give him a year off?
While I respect TJ's viewpoint, these off field issues inevitably change NFL history. A Peterson-less Vikings? Spin that in the highlight reel.


#47 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 14 September 2014 - 03:25 PM
BD Sullivan, on 14 Sept 2014 - 1:49 PM, said:

No, the criticism came in retrospect, not at the time. Sports Illustrated put Pete Rozelle on the cover a few weeks later. Why? Rozelle was being

honored as Sportsman of The Year.

BTW, I was following the NFL in 1963.

************************

Associated Press, 11/24/63

"The New York Times said in its Sunday edition that the NFL's decision to go through with its seven scheduled games 'evoked indignant reactions

from many pro football fans.'"

"The Times said 'a highly vocal minority of the callers said they were shocked, aghast, upset, ashamed or horrified that the game would go on.'"

Boston Herald, 11/25/63
"...Mister Rozelle behaved with what can be interpreted only as inexcusable callousness..."

Associated Press, 11/25/63
"NFL club spokemen admitted receiving phone calls protesting the decision to go ahead with Sunday's schedule"

San Diego Union, 11/26/63,
"Business-as-Usual Policy of NFL Rates No Applause"

Rozelle didn't help himself with this tone-deaf comment while at the Cardinals-Giants game: "I cannot feel that playing the game was disrespectful,

nor can I feel that I have made a mistake."


And why did SI give Rozelle an award and a flattering cover story if he was persona non grata with the nation's Opinion Makers? There were more

important things than what the NFL did or did not do. Yes, Rozelle regretted his decision later but it was not a big PR disaster at the time.

BTW, our local high school played basketball that night. Before the game, there was a moment of silence and then everyone sang the national

anthem.

We were a different country in 1963, inclined to "carry on" and still the nation that won WW II In fact, JFK embodied this himself.

I would add that we (our family) were strong Kennedy supporters.


#48 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 14 September 2014 - 04:52 PM
The references to "football following Dallas" brings to mind a question I have asked and heard asked many times.
It is an example of the chicken or the egg question.

Which league was the first to announce its intent: to play or not to play.
I have always felt that the other league would do the opposite of what was first announced.
It was a crap shoot. They rolled the dice and both leagues won. The AFL was praised; the NFL got the "Press."

Does anyone have an accurate timeline - day, hour, minute, etc. - as to who said what first?

#49 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 14 September 2014 - 06:03 PM
oldecapecod 11, on 14 Sept 2014 - 4:52 PM, said:
Does anyone have an accurate timeline - day, hour, minute, etc. - as to who said what first?
CBS announced that all their regular programming was cancelled, which came before Rozelle had come to a final decision. Rozelle later made

comments that he had talked to press secretary Pierre Salinger (a former classmate at USF), who essentially gave him the go-ahead.

The Dallas Morning News said that the AFL made their decision "several hours after ABC announced it would not televise the games Sunday as

usual."

Thus, it's hard to say exactly who made the first move.

#50 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 14 September 2014 - 06:27 PM
Citizen, on 14 Sept 2014 - 1:58 PM, said:
This is not an ordinary domestic assault case, and therefore not an ordinary news story, for two simple reasons: It involved an NFL player, and the

NFL tried to cover it up. This is a $10 billion-a-year industry, and one that's been elevated to a religion in America. When people in that industry

behave this badly, and that behavior is made public, that's news. Claiming that what Rice did is no more significant or egregious than some nobody

decking his wife in Anytown, USA, is naive and disingenuous.

Well, there are two parts to this. Of course it's news that he decked his fiancée. As such it was reported in February, and again when he got PTI,

and the various and sundry bits of fallout also are news. Where we disagree I think is the news value of the tape seven months after the fact. If there

was a cover-up, that too is news, though in my view not so much as to justify the pitchforks-and-torches kind of coverage that it has drawn.

The second part is the assault itself. He did what he did, and because of who he is, that makes it news, but it's no worse than an identical assault

committed by Joe Average. He's a douchebag, to be sure, but his crime is no worse because he's famous.

#51 NWebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 14 September 2014 - 10:20 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 14 Sept 2014 - 6:27 PM, said:
The second part is the assault itself. He did what he did, and because of who he is, that makes it news, but it's no worse than an identical assault

committed by Joe Average. He's a douchebag, to be sure, but his crime is no worse because he's famous.
Which was what I was trying to say - poorly obviously.

#52 John Grasso
Board of Directors
Posted 14 September 2014 - 10:37 PM
I haven't followed all the details but has it been reported as to what his fiancee said or did
that incurred Rice's wrath?

#53 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 14 September 2014 - 11:25 PM
John Grasso, on 14 Sept 2014 - 10:37 PM, said:
I haven't followed all the details but has it been reported as to what his fiancee said or did
that incurred Rice's wrath?

Does it matter?

#54 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 15 September 2014 - 12:59 AM
JohnH19, on 14 Sept 2014 - 11:25 PM, said:
Does it matter?
Yes. In a courtroom, there's a point where verbal provocation becomes so extreme that it's a defense to an assault that consists of one punch - one

that doesn't knock her out, at least.

We don't know what she said. I believe that they've never wavered from their position that this was a private matter between the two of them.

#55 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 15 September 2014 - 04:52 AM
Reaser, on 14 Sept 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:
If it happened in 2014, society and media today would be calling for him to lose his job.

Either way, for the thread topic, I'll say again it's only the "darkest" week because of today's media coverage and because it's happening now.

I mean really? This week is "darker" than the week of Jovan Belcher's murder/suicide? There was also a police video of releasing him prior to that

happening ... Which a couple days after that there was more CTE 'findings' (regardless of what I think about that subject, it was 'bad' news for the

NFL), oh and less than a week after Belcher, Terrell Suggs had to surrender his firearms because of a domestic accusations. Two dead, two

domestic violence issues, and the CTE issue at the same time to bring up the "death of football" talk. This was only two years ago . . .
Regardless of why (media), I found more negative NFL stuff this past week than the Belcher week.

The most negative years I can remember were 1987, 2012 and 2014.

As for September 14, I thoroughly enjoyed that day. It was nice to watch the games.

#56 John Grasso
Board of Directors
Posted 15 September 2014 - 07:02 AM
JohnH19, on 14 Sept 2014 - 11:25 PM, said:

Does it matter?
Yes, because I believe many if not all of us, if sufficiently provoked, could act in a violent manner.

#57 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 15 September 2014 - 07:09 AM
Is the new title of this thread to be: "Darkest Two Weeks?"
In other news: my Giants took a second step on the way to a winless season and talk of a Seahawks' dynasty is temporarily suspended.

"... NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported Sunday that the NFL Players Association will appeal Rice's suspension on his behalf Monday,

according a source informed of the situation. The union will argue that Rice was punished twice for the same offense..."

http://www.nfl.com/n...spension-monday

#58 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 15 September 2014 - 08:00 AM
Here's the big question I have about this situation:

Why does the video make a difference?

Let's simply review what happened: Everyone knew, way back in February, that Rice had knocked Janay Palmer unconscious and dragged her

from the elevator. In July, Goodell suspended Rice for two games. There was such an outcry about the perceived lightness of the punishment that in

August he announced a new policy: A six-game suspension for first-time domestic violence offenders. However, this new policy doesn't apply to

Rice (nor should it; that would be the equivalent of an ex post facto law).

Then the elevator tape goes public and all hell breaks loose. Rice's suspension suddenly becomes indefinite and the Ravens cut him.

But why? The tape shows that he knocked her unconscious and dragged her from the elevator. THAT WAS ALREADY PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE IN

FEBRUARY! Why should that change the punishment? Is it just the shock of seeing it, rather than merely reading about it, that suddenly makes the

offense so much worse?


#59 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 15 September 2014 - 11:08 AM
rhickok1109, on 15 Sept 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:
Here's the big question I have about this situation:

Why does the video make a difference?

Let's simply review what happened: Everyone knew, way back in February, that Rice had knocked Janay Palmer unconscious and dragged her

from the elevator. In July, Goodell suspended Rice for two games. There was such an outcry about the perceived lightness of the punishment that in

August he announced a new policy: A six-game suspension for first-time domestic violence offenders. However, this new policy doesn't apply to

Rice (nor should it; that would be the equivalent of an ex post facto law).

Then the elevator tape goes public and all hell breaks loose. Rice's suspension suddenly becomes indefinite and the Ravens cut him.

But why? The tape shows that he knocked her unconscious and dragged her from the elevator. THAT WAS ALREADY PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE IN

FEBRUARY! Why should that change the punishment? Is it just the shock of seeing it, rather than merely reading about it, that suddenly makes the

offense so much worse?

Yes, it is.

#60 JohnR
PFRA Member
Posted 15 September 2014 - 11:40 AM
rhickok1109, on 15 Sept 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:
Here's the big question I have about this situation:

Why does the video make a difference?

Let's simply review what happened: Everyone knew, way back in February, that Rice had knocked Janay Palmer unconscious and dragged her

from the elevator. In July, Goodell suspended Rice for two games. There was such an outcry about the perceived lightness of the punishment that in

August he announced a new policy: A six-game suspension for first-time domestic violence offenders. However, this new policy doesn't apply to

Rice (nor should it; that would be the equivalent of an ex post facto law).

Then the elevator tape goes public and all hell breaks loose. Rice's suspension suddenly becomes indefinite and the Ravens cut him.

But why? The tape shows that he knocked her unconscious and dragged her from the elevator. THAT WAS ALREADY PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE IN

FEBRUARY! Why should that change the punishment? Is it just the shock of seeing it, rather than merely reading about it, that suddenly makes the

offense so much worse?
Exactly. These decisions handed down haven't been carefully considered, they're fear driven.

Page 3 of 4

''Arguably Darkest Week In NFL History"?
Started by Wildcats Unite, Sep 12 2014 07:49 PM

Page 4 of 4

66 replies to this topic

#61 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 19 September 2014 - 09:01 PM
ESPN's Outside the Lines is reporting that the Ravens ownership and upper management knew about the video months ago and may have offered

Rice a bribe to go into pre-trial intervention program to keep the video from going public. If this report is true, this will eventually wind up costing

Goodell his job as the owners will lose faith in him as this incident is giving the NFL a serious PR problem and it ultimately hurts their brand and their

bottom lines.

http://www.theblaze....olence-scandal/

#62 JuggernautJ
PFRA Member
Posted 19 September 2014 - 09:25 PM
rhickok1109, on 15 Sept 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:
Here's the big question I have about this situation:

Why does the video make a difference?

Let's simply review what happened: Everyone knew, way back in February, that Rice had knocked Janay Palmer unconscious and dragged her

from the elevator. In July, Goodell suspended Rice for two games. There was such an outcry about the perceived lightness of the punishment that in

August he announced a new policy: A six-game suspension for first-time domestic violence offenders. However, this new policy doesn't apply to

Rice (nor should it; that would be the equivalent of an ex post facto law).

Then the elevator tape goes public and all hell breaks loose. Rice's suspension suddenly becomes indefinite and the Ravens cut him.

But why? The tape shows that he knocked her unconscious and dragged her from the elevator. THAT WAS ALREADY PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE IN

FEBRUARY! Why should that change the punishment? Is it just the shock of seeing it, rather than merely reading about it, that suddenly makes the

offense so much worse?

The medium is the message. -- Marshall Macluhan

#63 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 19 September 2014 - 10:08 PM
JuggernautJ, on 19 Sept 2014 - 9:25 PM, said:

The medium is the message. -- Marshall Macluhan
Massage, actually

#64 JuggernautJ
PFRA Member
Posted 19 September 2014 - 10:26 PM
That, too.

#65 Moran
PFRA Member
Posted 21 September 2014 - 07:29 PM
I find this all to be the flip side of the coin of NFL marketing - and of the money that has come from it. They have positioned themselves as a social

force for values in a way that has been shown to be in the hypocritical to delusional range and the media guys, who make so much less money than

the players, are happy to pounce on it.

#66 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 21 September 2014 - 08:58 PM
If TMZ had posted photos from Josh Brent's car accident, complete with the body of his teammate, would that have resulted in a suspension for

longer than 10 games?

#67 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 22 September 2014 - 10:19 AM
Moran
Posted Yesterday, 07:29 PM
"I find this all to be the flip side of the coin of NFL marketing - and of the money that has come from it. They have positioned themselves as a social

force for values in a way that has been shown to be in the hypocritical to delusional range and the media guys, who make so much less money than

the players, are happy to pounce on it."

Your points are well taken, Mike, but I really don't think the income difference has anything to do with it.
Sex sells! Murder sells! Disaster sells! Every incident is a feeding frenzy for the circling sharks - i.e. media. Some are bigger than others.
We see it throughout the world.

Here in Florida, the hurricane watch has started and there is not even a strong wind. As the "girls" (and now "boys" too) begin to form, they will start

to tell us how dangerous it is and to STAY TUNED. As it recedes and passes, they will tell us to STAY TUNED for the disaster report. Then they will

tell us of a new one forming somewhere off the coast of Commonawanna Dream Island and STAY TUNED.
And that is all it is - attempts to get you used to watching that particular channel.
It is not exclusive to Florida. Folks in the midwest have tornados; New England has nor'easters; Texas has border crossings; there are oil spills all

over; and, of course, the Med has wars - the ultimate "game." STAY TUNED - horror and bloodshed to follow.

There was this fellow in Florida. He was a bum and everyone who knew him knew he was a bum. If he had been black and shot a black juvenile

delinquent it might have made Page 5. It happens every week in every big city in America. If he had been black and shot a white JD, so what - the

kid probably deserved it. But, he was white and shot a black kid so let's all play the race card game. STAY TUNED.
How many useless and senseless stories about that incident made headlines. And the man certainly helped with his post-shooting antics.
More to follow: STAY TUNED

What I really want to know is why everyone is looking ONLY to the NFL?
Cannot the hotel be a complaining witness - i.e. something called disturbing the peace? a public nuisance?
(But then, would they ever get another professional athlete as a guest?)
What's wrong with law enforcement? There is a FILM, boys and girls. Is the victim's testimony mandatory?
(Whoops! Sorry! We all know who controls Atlantic City and has from the very start.)

Page 4 of 4