The six-game minimum comes with a caveat. If there are mitigating circumstances, then the punishment can be reduced. That’s apparently what happened with Giants kicker Josh Brown. It’s impossible to know that for sure because: (1) the NFL has not specified what the mitigating circumstances, if any, were; and (2) the NFL didn’t even mention consideration of mitigating circumstances in its multiple statements on the matter. The only thing the league has said to justify the one-game suspension is that both Brown’s ex-wife and law enforcement officials refused to cooperate with the investigation.
The mitigating circumstance IS the lack of access to information.
Verbatim from the personal conduct policy is that someone must be charged with something
If someone is charged with domestic violence or sexual assault, there will be a mandatory evaluation and, where professionally indicated, counseling or other specialized services. Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant.
... I, for one, am very impressed with the way the Giants have handled this situation.
Just kicking Brown to the side of the road would have been the path of least resistance (by far). The easy thing to do.
I think most of us like to believe that we don't make important decisions based on things like hearsay, uncorroborated allegations, or anything like that. But when the stuff hits the fan on a hot-button issue like this... that's the test.
Convictions about DV aside, I think most folks would have thrown Brown under the bus just to avoid the incredible hassle of a situation like this.
You, me, BBI members, etc. Its just not fair to convict someone publicly when charges are dropped and nothing ever comes of it. We can say "but why would she", but then can't we just as equivalently say "if there was no proof then how do we know he did something"? There are also well publicized examples of this on both sides. Why is there a rush to find him guilty here? Imagine if you were accused of something that didn't happen, and everyone just wanted you locked up/fired/shunned without proof.
knowledge around the organization that his ex-wife is nuts. That's the only way I'd imagine the Giants being comfortable with keeping him around.
I don't know which talk radio host it was, but someone who typically doesn't defend the Giants (Boomer Esiason?) was intimating that the Giants had more information than they were sharing, and that it was the driving factor behind their decision.
Otherwise, let's be realistic - we're not talking Plax or Odell here, it's Josh Brown. Why would the Giants stick their necks out for a guy who could so easily be replaced?
he's a pretty good writer who has been running a free website for over a decade. BTW he's a diehard Steelers not Redskins fan.
And if you think what he's saying now is bad, wait until Bob Costas gets his bite at the apple. Face it this is one of this situations where we'll have to grow a thick skin because nothing about Josh Brown's situation looks good from a PR perspective.
But let's be honest if he has another Pro-Bowl type year very few of us will care.
Or Bob Costas, or Mike Lupica, or the man in the moon, for that matter? The NFL obviously doesn't. The Giants obviously don't, so fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
RE: RE: I don't follow this paragraph. Why is this confusing. Â
Anyone can say anything. Violence against anyone is wrong. However, anyone who does not recognize that there are degrees is living in a bubble. You can violate a protective order by calling home to speak with your kids if the ex-wife answers.
We don't as fans - or most of the press - have all or even the majority of the facts. The easiest thing these days is to get on your soapbox and spout zero tolerence. The Giants did not do that and I admire them for it. I don't think Josh Brown is soooo good that they would have stuck with him without a good reason.
RE: Maybe I'm in the minority, but who gives a damn what Florio says? Â
Or Bob Costas, or Mike Lupica, or the man in the moon, for that matter? The NFL obviously doesn't. The Giants obviously don't, so fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
he writes for the most visible and prolific football news site in the country.
RE: RE: Maybe I'm in the minority, but who gives a damn what Florio says? Â
Or Bob Costas, or Mike Lupica, or the man in the moon, for that matter? The NFL obviously doesn't. The Giants obviously don't, so fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
he writes for the most visible and prolific football news site in the country.
Whoop Dee Doo. That and $2.50 will get you on the subway.
The mitigating circumstance IS the lack of access to information.
Verbatim from the personal conduct policy is that someone must be charged with something
If someone is charged with domestic violence or sexual assault, there will be a mandatory evaluation and, where professionally indicated, counseling or other specialized services. Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant.
Just kicking Brown to the side of the road would have been the path of least resistance (by far). The easy thing to do.
I think most of us like to believe that we don't make important decisions based on things like hearsay, uncorroborated allegations, or anything like that. But when the stuff hits the fan on a hot-button issue like this... that's the test.
Convictions about DV aside, I think most folks would have thrown Brown under the bus just to avoid the incredible hassle of a situation like this.
Verbatim from the personal conduct policy is that someone must be charged with something
So why did he get a 1-game suspension if he wasn't charged?
I don't know which talk radio host it was, but someone who typically doesn't defend the Giants (Boomer Esiason?) was intimating that the Giants had more information than they were sharing, and that it was the driving factor behind their decision.
Otherwise, let's be realistic - we're not talking Plax or Odell here, it's Josh Brown. Why would the Giants stick their necks out for a guy who could so easily be replaced?
And if you think what he's saying now is bad, wait until Bob Costas gets his bite at the apple. Face it this is one of this situations where we'll have to grow a thick skin because nothing about Josh Brown's situation looks good from a PR perspective.
But let's be honest if he has another Pro-Bowl type year very few of us will care.
Quote:
Verbatim from the personal conduct policy is that someone must be charged with something
So why did he get a 1-game suspension if he wasn't charged?
That should be the question people are asking, not people assuming he's guilty and demanding a firing.
With all the good that they have done with the domestic violence victims advocates in Westchester, its ridiculous to think they'd do that.
Let it play out, and see what the truth really is.
We don't as fans - or most of the press - have all or even the majority of the facts. The easiest thing these days is to get on your soapbox and spout zero tolerence. The Giants did not do that and I admire them for it. I don't think Josh Brown is soooo good that they would have stuck with him without a good reason.
he writes for the most visible and prolific football news site in the country.
Quote:
Or Bob Costas, or Mike Lupica, or the man in the moon, for that matter? The NFL obviously doesn't. The Giants obviously don't, so fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
he writes for the most visible and prolific football news site in the country.
Whoop Dee Doo. That and $2.50 will get you on the subway.