In several days following New England Patriots quarterback’s public statement to local fans in the greater Boston area denouncing domestic violence from a personal standpoint as a father, Roger Goodell spoke on the radio to prove a statement that reaffirms the league’s delicate handling of a bivalence issue.
Speaking on WFAN, Goodell emphasized the need for a thorough examination of each case given the sensitive piracy rights involved the NFL’s Personal Conduct.
"“What you see here is a policy that’s evolved. We’ve learned a lot, but these are complex matters. When you talk to the domestic violence experts, these are difficult matters to deal with. You have rights, you have families that you have to be concerned with, privacy issues. Yes, you want to make sure you’re doing everything possible to address these (alleged incidents) when they happen, but you also want to deal with them to prevent them from happening."
The Code of Conduct provisions of the NFL rulebook might be called, instead, “Domestic Violence, Operating a Firearm, Violence: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!” As Elaine Benes discussed with a famous Russian novelist the actual title for Tolstoi’s War and Peace, the same applies here, in theory.
Players do not read the code of conduct any more than purchases of a home read all of the terms of the mortgage agreement. It is just a formality that one has to go through by accepting the terms on a “take it or leave it” basis.
It is worth wondering whether the rule book has any influence on players actions, or whether it use is only after the fact to penalize behavior that a player does not know is wrong, according to the NFL’s standards which tolerates and even celebrates extreme violence on the field.
There is no justification for the behavior of the litany of NFL players who have been accused of domestic violence any more than a murderer who is accused of taking a life.
But the way the Code of Conduct is written may not be doing the league much good. Rather then having players suspended of violation of the code of conduct after the fact, it is better to have regular mandatory professional development trainings for players of navigating a life of sanctioned violence on the field with a responsible marital relationship off-the field. Such a mandatory policy could have many benefits.
First, players would exercise better judgment when conducting themselves without the presence of their coaches, in-house counsel or PA representative. This would treat multi-million dollar contract awardees the same way the general public is treated when it comes to behavior outside of the work place. We would all want to live in a world where individuals do not have to avoid behavior only until they are suspended and the matter sparks a national controversy.
Second, there is a perception that is widely held that players in the league are too aggressive and not sensitive enough as Olympic triathletes, trapeze artists or marathon runners. This perception can change if there is a culture of respect for peace and tranquility in off-the-field relations. The boundary of sanctioned violence on the gridiron would end the moment the player’s cleat steps off the field.
Then, there is the view that players are capable of holding extremely nuanced views, and so would welcome the league’s initiates toward professional development. If Tom Brady can endorse Donald Trump for his business prowess around the world for the past thirty years, then certainly Josh Brown is capable of having a conversation with a Giants’ psychologist about his understanding of the need to make football players more civilized in their dealings with non-players, especially their spouses.
Of the many issues which the Giants will consider amid a bye is how to make players reputations be closer to the well-mannered Roger Moore compared to the quite brutal Daniel Craig. Saying words is not enough; action matters more, and Goodell should rewrite the rulebook to make players more like the rest of us.