Where are the NFL's priorities?

DeToxRox · 09-26-2008, 01:21 PM

I am so sick of the hypocrisim of the NFL.

Matt Bryant, kicker of the Bucs, lost his several month old son unexpectedly this week, and the NFL won't give the Bucs a roster exemption, so they'll either have to cut a guy and sign a kicker, or Bryant has to play. This is horrible when you consider if a guy is suspended the team gets an exemption, but not for a tragedy like this?

If I am Gruden, I "suspend" Bryant with pay so he can be home with his family and not have to feel obligated to kick.

I just wonder where the NFL has their priorities? For a league so worried about their public image, things like this should never happen.

MikeVic · 09-26-2008, 01:25 PM

That's horrible. I agree.

molson · 09-26-2008, 01:32 PM

I'm surprised the NFL doesn't have some kind of "bereaved list" like MLB.

Lathum · 09-26-2008, 01:44 PM

the real tragedy is he lost his child, but the NFL's handling of it is deplorable.

Travis · 09-26-2008, 02:01 PM

Hopefully some good comes of this in the sense that the team finds a loophole (such as a suspension with pay) to circumvent the current rules structure and the NFL changes their rules to include some sort of bereavement leave so this never happens to a player again.

This is of course assuming the NFL doesn't act quickly enough to implement something for this weekend which I sincerely hope they do as that's just horrible.

Fidatelo · 09-26-2008, 02:20 PM

I think Matt Bryant should get one free kick at the nuts of the moron who made the final decision not to allow the exemption.

miami_fan · 09-26-2008, 02:51 PM

I guess I will be the asshole in the mix but the NFL priorities seemed to be in the same spot it always has. I can hear the NFL's response now. If they make an exemption for this, then what happens when a guy's wife is giving birth, or his mother passes, and so on and so on. This has been the NFL's MO in the past when it comes to family type issues so at least they are consistent. Usually the player is told to suck it up the same way the rest of the working world does.

All that being said, I hope the NFL does change its policy. In this case as in all the others like it, there comes a point when the GAME is not the most important thing in the world.

JPhillips · 09-26-2008, 02:57 PM

I would imagine roster setup would be a part of the collective bargaining agreement. It certainly needs to be worked out, but I'd be surprised if the NFL could change it without altering the players' contract.

Fidatelo · 09-26-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Usually the player is told to suck it up the same way the rest of the working world does.

What working world do you work in? I'm pretty sure my boss would let me take a couple days off if my infant son died. Maybe you need to think about sending out some resumes...

Arles · 09-26-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think Matt Bryant should get one free kick at the nuts of the moron who made the final decision not to allow the exemption.

ditto

gstelmack · 09-26-2008, 03:04 PM

It's not a question of him getting the time off. It's a question of the team not being able to have a replacement for that one game.

Of course, in these days of salary caps, the NFL could probably drop roster limits entirely...

Fidatelo · 09-26-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Of course, in these days of salary caps, the NFL could probably drop roster limits entirely...

That's actually a really good point. What purpose does a roster limit serve in the NFL?

Abe Sargent · 09-26-2008, 03:38 PM

Keep the money in the players pockets. By having a cap, teams have to average the money they pay among their players so the current players get more average money now.

samifan24 · 09-26-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

I'm surprised the NFL doesn't have some kind of "bereaved list" like MLB.

I know the NHL has a bereavement list; I thought all four sports did?

Fidatelo · 09-26-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

Keep the money in the players pockets. By having a cap, teams have to average the money they pay among their players so the current players get more average money now.

So you're saying if there was no limit, teams would have 150 players all making the league minimum?

molson · 09-26-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I guess I will be the asshole in the mix but the NFL priorities seemed to be in the same spot it always has. I can hear the NFL's response now. If they make an exemption for this, then what happens when a guy's wife is giving birth, or his mother passes, and so on and so on. This has been the NFL's MO in the past when it comes to family type issues so at least they are consistent. Usually the player is told to suck it up the same way the rest of the working world does.

All that being said, I hope the NFL does change its policy. In this case as in all the others like it, there comes a point when the GAME is not the most important thing in the world.

I can definitely understand the NFL's side of this. Whether Bryant plays or not is between him and his team. If he doesn't play, the team might have to reshuffle the roster a little. Big deal. They could also just put him on the practice squad for a week (at the same salary). Presumably, Bryant wouldn't run off to another team in that scenerio.

I see they activated Marcus Hamilton from the practice squad last week. Put him back, bring in a kicker. No biggie.

Bryant should be able to do what he wants without personal penalty. But I don't think the NFL necessarily needs to accomodate the team from a roster perspective in a way they've never done for anyone else.

Galaxy · 09-26-2008, 04:15 PM

Doesn't the NFL have to follow US laws in regards to this?

molson · 09-26-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Doesn't the NFL have to follow US laws in regards to this?

What laws?

Greyroofoo · 09-26-2008, 04:42 PM

I think the NFL sees a huge area for abuse if they allow this.

fantom1979 · 09-26-2008, 04:58 PM

I don't know of any laws covering this, but even if their were laws, I am pretty sure that the Antitrust agreement the NFL has would allow them to disregard the law anyhow.

miami_fan · 09-26-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

What working world do you work in? I'm pretty sure my boss would let me take a couple days off if my infant son died. Maybe you need to think about sending out some resumes...

His boss, Tampa Bay, can give him as much time off as they see fit. That has nothing to do with the NFL. That is the way this type of thing has been handled in the past. I don't agree with it but again, they are consistent.

Wasn't this an issue last year with some WR? Vikings maybe?

molson · 09-26-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Wasn't this an issue last year with some WR? Vikings maybe?

There was a player who missed a long time for a grandmother's funeral. That was more of a player/team dispute, if I recall.

The more I think about it, the NFL is smart to just stay out of stuff like this. There's flexibility within the roster rules - inactive player lists, practice squads, non-guaranteed contracts. The player and team can work it out without the NFL swooping in and making case-by-case decisions.

Raiders Army · 09-26-2008, 05:36 PM

Who's Gene Upshaw's replacement? Isn't this something the union should be taking on?

Passacaglia · 09-28-2008, 12:04 PM

Looks like Bryant is playing.

EagleFan · 09-28-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think Matt Bryant should get one free kick at the nuts of the moron who made the final decision not to allow the exemption.

Why? The NFL is not saying that he has to play. While it is a tragedy what happened to his son there are a lot of people out there who don't get a dime if they have to miss work for something like this (and people in those positions generally can't afford to miss that money) so feeling sorry for a pro athlete who either needs to show up for 3 hours to kick a football or maybe not get paid for the week is pretty low on my list of priorities.

DeToxRox · 09-28-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Why? The NFL is not saying that he has to play. While it is a tragedy what happened to his son there are a lot of people out there who don't get a dime if they have to miss work for something like this (and people in those positions generally can't afford to miss that money) so feeling sorry for a pro athlete who either needs to show up for 3 hours to kick a football or maybe not get paid for the week is pretty low on my list of priorities.

The problem is if he decides I cannot play, someone else loses their lively hood because they have to be cut.

Seems like bullshit to me. Guy has enough on his mind already.

DeToxRox · 09-28-2008, 01:17 PM

FWIW, from 11:30 am today on PFT

Chris Mortensen of ESPN mentioned moments ago that he has spoken with members of the Competition Committee regarding the current absence of a roster exemption that would have allowed kicker Matt Bryant to take Sunday off in the wake of his infant son’s death without having to sign a new kicker and then, in turn, cutting a current member of the 53-man roster.

Mort says that, because teams have backups at every position except kicker, a change to the rules could come.

molson · 09-28-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

The problem is if he decides I cannot play, someone else loses their lively hood because they have to be cut.

For one day. The team could just increase his salary by that much when they bring him back Monday, if they're that concerned about it.

PLENTY of ways out of this for the Buccs if Bryant didn't want to play.

Galaxy · 09-28-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

For one day. The team could just increase his salary by that much when they bring him back Monday, if they're that concerned about it.

PLENTY of ways out of this for the Buccs if Bryant didn't want to play.

Wouldn't the Bucs get a salary cap hit if they release him?

molson · 09-28-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Wouldn't the Bucs get a salary cap hit if they release him?

Maybe, I guess it would depend who they cut. I imagine the guys at the bottom of the 53-man roster that bounce back and forth between the roster and practice squad don't have much of a signing bonus (The Buccs, and every other NFL team, make low-level moves like this every week).

And again, you can move someone (including Bryant) to the practice squad and pay him his full week's salary.

A change in rules would probably be a good idea (maybe a specific punter/kicker reserve list to cover stuff like this, and minor injuries), but the NFL shouldn't get involved in teams' roster management on a case-by-case basis.

Chief Rum · 09-28-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

There was a player who missed a long time for a grandmother's funeral. That was more of a player/team dispute, if I recall.

Troy Williamson when he was with the Vikes.

DeToxRox · 09-30-2008, 10:16 AM

Sigh ... Per PFT

Bengals receiver Chris Henry is back, after his latest suspension for violation of the Personal Conduct Policy.

Hooray?

Henry didn’t count against the 53-man roster while he was suspended, and he won’t count against the active roster this week.

The team announced on Monday that the league has given the Bengals a roster exemption for Henry.

This means that he can rejoin the team without the team having to make a roster move to create a spot for him. And it serves only to highlight the need for a tweak in the rules to allow a team with a player who has suffered a death in his immediate family to have a roster exemption until the player can return.

The issue hit the front burner last week, when the Buccaneers would have been faced with having to cut a player and sign a kicker if Matt Bryant couldn’t play a day after burying his infant son. The situation arguably pressured Bryant to play, given that one of his teammates would have lost his spot on the team if Bryant had taken the week off.

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reported on Sunday that the Competition Committee will likely look at this rule in the offseason.

Abe Sargent · 09-30-2008, 10:23 AM

I can see both sides on this issu.

Lathum · 09-30-2008, 10:24 AM

thats beyond messed up

DeToxRox · 09-30-2008, 10:31 AM

I just don't see how the Bengals are rewarded for having a repeat offender being given an exemption for this week. Furthermore, how the Bengals themselves, with how big of a joke they have been with player condut, get a break.

It just irks me.

molson · 09-30-2008, 10:35 AM

Is that really an "exemption"? I thought that under NFL rules, a suspended player didn't count against the 53-man roster (I know the Pats were allowed to replace Kevin Faulk week 1)

The NFL just needs to follow its own rules. If you're allowed to replace a suspended player but not a grieving player, fine, that's how it should be enforced this year, and then it can be taken up in the off-season if you want to change the rule.

This isn't the XFL, you don't change the rules every week as new situations come up.

DeToxRox · 09-30-2008, 10:37 AM

He isn't suspended anymore though. He had a 4 week suspension.

Lathum · 09-30-2008, 10:39 AM

the way I read it is that Henry, who will be activated this week, wont count against the 53 man roster. Thus allowing the Bengals 54 active men.

Yet a guys kid dies and the Bucs arent allowed to sign someone while keeping Bryant on the roster, thus giving them 54 active.

am I missing something?

molson · 09-30-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum

the way I read it is that Henry, who will be activated this week, wont count against the 53 man roster. Thus allowing the Bengals 54 active men.

Yet a guys kid dies and the Bucs arent allowed to sign someone while keeping Bryant on the roster, thus giving them 54 active.

am I missing something?

I missed that, but my point's the same.

If the NFL's just making shit up for this sitaution, it's wrong. If's there's a rule in place, that applies to every team, that allows this exception, then it's fine (no matter what happened with Bryant).

Lathum · 09-30-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

I missed that, but my point's the same.

If the NFL's just making shit up for this sitaution, it's wrong. If's there's a rule in place, that applies to every team, that allows this exception, then it's fine (no matter what happened with Bryant).

Just because it is the NFL doesnt mean rules shouldn't be circumvented for extreme circumstances.

The guys kid died for christs sake, I am sure most most peoples place of work has a rule that if you dont show up and dont call your fired. and that rule would probably be ignored in an extreme situation like this one.

Pumpy Tudors · 09-30-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

And again, you can move someone (including Bryant) to the practice squad and pay him his full week's salary.

Is he eligible for the practice squad?

molson · 09-30-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Is he eligible for the practice squad?

The only restriction is that someone can only be put on it a certain number of times (I think 3), and that while they're on it, they can sign with any other team.

Most lower-level guys have split roster/practice squad salaries, but you can pay a guy on the practice squad a full NFL salary if you want.

sabotai · 09-30-2008, 03:39 PM

You can't just move players to and from the practice squad. You'd have to officially cut him, and then hire him for the practice squad (and I think they have a cap on how much you can pay them.)

EDIT: http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seah...ce_squad_rules

There are lots of rules for the practice squad, many of which make Bryant ineligible to be placed on it.

09-26-2008, 02:01 PM	#5
Travis Pro Rookie Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Canada eh	Hopefully some good comes of this in the sense that the team finds a loophole (such as a suspension with pay) to circumvent the current rules structure and the NFL changes their rules to include some sort of bereavement leave so this never happens to a player again. This is of course assuming the NFL doesn't act quickly enough to implement something for this weekend which I sincerely hope they do as that's just horrible. __________________ "I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it." - Rogers Hornsby

09-26-2008, 02:20 PM	#6
Fidatelo Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Winnipeg, MB	I think Matt Bryant should get one free kick at the nuts of the moron who made the final decision not to allow the exemption. __________________ "Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime."

09-26-2008, 02:51 PM	#7
miami_fan Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Land O Lakes FL	I guess I will be the asshole in the mix but the NFL priorities seemed to be in the same spot it always has. I can hear the NFL's response now. If they make an exemption for this, then what happens when a guy's wife is giving birth, or his mother passes, and so on and so on. This has been the NFL's MO in the past when it comes to family type issues so at least they are consistent. Usually the player is told to suck it up the same way the rest of the working world does. All that being said, I hope the NFL does change its policy. In this case as in all the others like it, there comes a point when the GAME is not the most important thing in the world. __________________ "The blind soldier fought for me in this war. The least I can do now is fight for him. I have eyes. He hasn’t. I have a voice on the radio, he hasn’t. I was born a white man. And until a colored man is a full citizen, like me, I haven’t the leisure to enjoy the freedom that colored man risked his life to maintain for me. I don’t own what I have until he owns an equal share of it. Until somebody beats me and blinds me, I am in his debt."- Orson Welles August 11, 1946

09-26-2008, 02:57 PM	#8
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	I would imagine roster setup would be a part of the collective bargaining agreement. It certainly needs to be worked out, but I'd be surprised if the NFL could change it without altering the players' contract. __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

09-26-2008, 03:04 PM	#11
gstelmack Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cary, NC	It's not a question of him getting the time off. It's a question of the team not being able to have a replacement for that one game. Of course, in these days of salary caps, the NFL could probably drop roster limits entirely... __________________ -- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities

09-26-2008, 01:25 PM	#2
MikeVic Head Coach Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Hometown of Canada	That's horrible. I agree.

09-26-2008, 01:32 PM	#3
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	I'm surprised the NFL doesn't have some kind of "bereaved list" like MLB.

09-26-2008, 01:44 PM	#4
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	the real tragedy is he lost his child, but the NFL's handling of it is deplorable.

09-26-2008, 03:38 PM	#13
Abe Sargent Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Catonsville, MD	Keep the money in the players pockets. By having a cap, teams have to average the money they pay among their players so the current players get more average money now. __________________ Check out my two current weekly Magic columns! https://www.coolstuffinc.com/a/?action=search&page=1&author[]=Abe%20Sargent

09-26-2008, 04:15 PM	#17
Galaxy Coordinator Join Date: Apr 2005	Doesn't the NFL have to follow US laws in regards to this?

09-26-2008, 04:42 PM	#19
Greyroofoo Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Alabama	I think the NFL sees a huge area for abuse if they allow this.

09-26-2008, 04:58 PM	#20
fantom1979 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Sterling Heights, Mi	I don't know of any laws covering this, but even if their were laws, I am pretty sure that the Antitrust agreement the NFL has would allow them to disregard the law anyhow.

09-26-2008, 05:36 PM	#23
Raiders Army Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Black Hole	Who's Gene Upshaw's replacement? Isn't this something the union should be taking on?

09-28-2008, 12:04 PM	#24
Passacaglia Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Big Ten Country	Looks like Bryant is playing.

09-28-2008, 01:17 PM	#27
DeToxRox Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Michigan	FWIW, from 11:30 am today on PFT Chris Mortensen of ESPN mentioned moments ago that he has spoken with members of the Competition Committee regarding the current absence of a roster exemption that would have allowed kicker Matt Bryant to take Sunday off in the wake of his infant son’s death without having to sign a new kicker and then, in turn, cutting a current member of the 53-man roster. Mort says that, because teams have backups at every position except kicker, a change to the rules could come.

09-30-2008, 10:16 AM	#32
DeToxRox Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Michigan	Sigh ... Per PFT Bengals receiver Chris Henry is back, after his latest suspension for violation of the Personal Conduct Policy. Hooray? Henry didn’t count against the 53-man roster while he was suspended, and he won’t count against the active roster this week. The team announced on Monday that the league has given the Bengals a roster exemption for Henry. This means that he can rejoin the team without the team having to make a roster move to create a spot for him. And it serves only to highlight the need for a tweak in the rules to allow a team with a player who has suffered a death in his immediate family to have a roster exemption until the player can return. The issue hit the front burner last week, when the Buccaneers would have been faced with having to cut a player and sign a kicker if Matt Bryant couldn’t play a day after burying his infant son. The situation arguably pressured Bryant to play, given that one of his teammates would have lost his spot on the team if Bryant had taken the week off. Chris Mortensen of ESPN reported on Sunday that the Competition Committee will likely look at this rule in the offseason.

09-30-2008, 10:23 AM	#33
Abe Sargent Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Catonsville, MD	I can see both sides on this issu. __________________ Check out my two current weekly Magic columns! https://www.coolstuffinc.com/a/?action=search&page=1&author[]=Abe%20Sargent

09-30-2008, 10:24 AM	#34
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	thats beyond messed up

09-30-2008, 10:31 AM	#35
DeToxRox Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Michigan	I just don't see how the Bengals are rewarded for having a repeat offender being given an exemption for this week. Furthermore, how the Bengals themselves, with how big of a joke they have been with player condut, get a break. It just irks me.

09-30-2008, 10:35 AM	#36
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	Is that really an "exemption"? I thought that under NFL rules, a suspended player didn't count against the 53-man roster (I know the Pats were allowed to replace Kevin Faulk week 1) The NFL just needs to follow its own rules. If you're allowed to replace a suspended player but not a grieving player, fine, that's how it should be enforced this year, and then it can be taken up in the off-season if you want to change the rule. This isn't the XFL, you don't change the rules every week as new situations come up. Last edited by molson : 09-30-2008 at 10:36 AM.

09-30-2008, 10:37 AM	#37
DeToxRox Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Michigan	He isn't suspended anymore though. He had a 4 week suspension.

09-30-2008, 10:39 AM	#38
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	the way I read it is that Henry, who will be activated this week, wont count against the 53 man roster. Thus allowing the Bengals 54 active men. Yet a guys kid dies and the Bucs arent allowed to sign someone while keeping Bryant on the roster, thus giving them 54 active. am I missing something?

09-30-2008, 03:39 PM	#43
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	You can't just move players to and from the practice squad. You'd have to officially cut him, and then hire him for the practice squad (and I think they have a cap on how much you can pay them.) EDIT: http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seah...ce_squad_rules There are lots of rules for the practice squad, many of which make Bryant ineligible to be placed on it. Last edited by sabotai : 09-30-2008 at 03:42 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)