It’s time for Roger Goodell to give up his disciplinary powers.
After having yet another suspension reduced or overturned — this time in the Deflategate case — coupled with a new ESPN report on the NFL commissioner’s handling of Spygate, it’s clear Goodell is unfit to hand out fair, well-reasoned punishments.
When the last collective bargaining agreement was drawn up between NFL owners and the NFL Players’ Association in 2011, nobody seemed to realize that giving the commissioner the power to judge, sentence and hear appeals was a bad idea.
There were other issues on the table that both sides deemed more important at the time, and as such, it went unaddressed.
Because of that, Goodell has every right to determine and rule on all player punishments, a terribly flawed system with anyone in charge.
But Goodell, a man whose decisions have been inconsistent, unfair and made for public relations purposes, not justice, has proven he is one of the last people who should have such power. And if he cares about the credibility of the league, he will relinquish that power and give it to someone else.
We don’t have to look far for evidence of the commissioner’s failure to act fairly.
In the Ray Rice domestic violence case from 2014, Goodell vastly underestimated the scale of the crime and didn’t pursue the facts to the fullest extent, ultimately handing down a two-game suspension. That was obviously a mistake.
But after video of the incident was made available to the public, the commissioner reacted to the public outcry by making new rules for domestic abuse and suspended Rice indefinitely. The problem was the new rules weren’t in place when the incident occurred, and even if it had, an indefinite suspension didn’t follow the new rules anyway. There was no basis or precedent for that type of penalty.
As much as you might abhor Rice’s actions, you can’t make up punishments on the spot, and you certainly can’t double punish someone.
Goodell did the same thing shortly after with Greg Hardy, who was initially charged for an incident with his girlfriend before the charges were eventually dropped. Despite the fact that the incident occurred before the new domestic violence was in place, the commissioner gave him a 10-game suspension, likely to quell the public backlash.
The 10 games were reduced to four by an arbitrator, who cited how there was, of course, no precedent for Goodell to levy such a suspension.
And most recently, ESPN’s Outside the Lines reported that the recently nullified four-game suspension of Tom Brady was a “makeup call” for not going after the Patriots hard enough during the 2007 Spygate scandal because he didn’t want the spotlight from an investigation.
Instead, Goodell opted to downplay the scope of the organization’s spying and had evidence destroyed that would have revealed just how far back the Patriots had been involved in the practice.
With that in mind, he went after the organization and Brady, having to prove to the public and, most importantly, the other owners that he wouldn’t play favorites.
That’s the big problem.
Goodell hasn’t made his decisions based on rules with the intention of fitting the crime with the punishment.
Instead, his first reaction is always public or private damage control, and he’s willing to suspend the established laws of the league to save face for the league, one way or the other.
The NFL needs a judge who will make decisions based on fairness, completely unattached to the league’s interests.
And that has not, is not, and will not be Roger Goodell.
Follow Graham Hack on Twitter @graham_hack24
New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady passes against the Seattle Seahawks during the first half of NFL Super Bowl XLIX football game on Feb. 1.
