The Rashee Rice case creates bad optics for the league
That's absolutely happening in the Rashee Rice case.
Fans of the Chiefs are quick to attack the notion that Rice and the Chiefs have received favorable treatment from the league office via the delayed resolution of his Personal Conduct Policy case. And those same people would be saying something very different if Rice played for another team.
But here's the basic reality. Rice engaged in a dangerous street race in late March of 2024. The incident was captured on video. In the months since then, the handling of Rice has seemed odd, to say the least.
Various media members have asked, for months, why the league hadn't done anything. The reason is clear. The NFL's standard practice is to wait for the resolution of the underlying criminal case before imposing discipline under the Personal Conduct Policy.
Here, Rice was charged with eight felonies. He was not placed on paid leave. That part is easily explained, too; the NFL, despite having the express ability to place a player charged with only one felony on paid leave, typically uses this P.R. tool only when the charge relates to domestic violence.
The situation changed after Rice pleaded guilty to two felonies, resulting in 30 days of jail time (which can be served at any point over the next five years) and five years of probation. The guilty plea was entered on July 17. The next step was to evaluate his case for discipline under the Personal Conduct Policy.
At least one reporter employed by the media outlet of which the NFL will eventually acquire a 10-percent stake has suggested there's nothing to see here. The league and Rice's representatives tried to work out an agreed suspension. After they reached an impasse, it was time to schedule a hearing. The disciplinary officer under the Personal Conduct Policy, retired judge Sue L. Robinson, wasn't available until September 30.
As a result, Rice will be eligible to play until the hearing is held, the punishment is decided, and any appeal (by the NFL and/or by Rice) to the Commissioner or his designee is resolved.
And what of the apples-to-apples comparison to Vikings receiver Jordan Addison, who pleaded guilty on the same day to a misdemeanor with no jail time? He has already been suspended for the first three games of the regular season.
Obviously, his suspension arose under a different policy. He didn't fight it. It was automatic: Three games for a guilty plea in any case that involves a DUI charge. The procedure under the Personal Conduct Policy takes more time to unfold, especially when the proposed punishment is contested by the player, his representation, and the NFL Players Association.
But there was no reason to delay the process. Although I do not (and never will) believe that the league consciously rigs games for the Chiefs, it's impossible to rule out a partial erosion of the supposed firewall between the 'integrity of the game' and the NFL's business objectives. The Chiefs quite possibly get more 'jump balls' than other teams, either through the exercise of in-game discretion by officials who are aware of the ratings muscle of the Chiefs or, in this case, from the urgency (or lack thereof) displayed by the bureaucrats responsible for the implementation of the league's in-house justice system.
Just as the league's standard practice is to delay imposing discipline until the criminal charges have been resolved, the league has a standard practice of finalizing potential suspensions before the start of a given season. As to Rice, the NFL has deviated from that standard practice.
Other teams are looking at the handling of Rice and wondering why the deviation has happened. Why wasn't the league ready to mobilize immediately upon Rice pleading guilty to multiple felonies? Why didn't the league insist on the scheduling of a hearing in, for example, early August, so that the case would have been resolved before Week 1?
The league has a well-earned reputation, in matters of player discipline, of getting what it wants, when it wants it. In this case, the league undoubtedly didn't say, 'Let's slow this down so that Rice is available to the Chiefs for an early-season slate that features six straight games on big platforms.' But the popularity of the Chiefs combined with their presence on YouTube in Week 1, the Fox national 4:25 p.m. ET game in Week 2, NBC in Week 3, the CBS national 4:25 p.m. ET game in Week 4, ABC/ESPN in Week 5, and NBC in Week 6 may have influenced, consciously or not, the failure to insist on the standard practice of finalizing all pending suspensions before the regular-season starts.
That easily could have happened. This case doesn't require a detailed presentation of evidence. Play the video of the street race and the ensuing crash. Introduce medical records regarding the injuries suffered by the people in other cars. Determine an appropriate punishment. Appeal the decision.
It could have been done by Week 1, if it had been prioritized by those responsible for doing so. It wasn't.
And that's the problem. At a time when the tinfoil-hat crowd is looking for evidence to legitimize the misguided conspiracy theories, the NFL tossed a raw steak into the cage.
If anything, the unfounded perception that the league deliberately favors the Chiefs should have compelled the league to ensure that Rice's case was resolved ASAFP.
And it doesn't matter, as some have suggested, whether the Chiefs would prefer to have Rice for those early-season games, or whether they'd like to have him serve his suspension and return without the reality of a future absence hanging over the team. The league knows the schedule. Six games, on major platforms. The Chiefs will be at full strength for at least four, if not five. (And, if there's an appeal, definitely all six.)
That's the heart of the concern. By not insisting that a clear, undeniable violation of the Personal Conduct Policy that happened in plain sight nearly 17 months ago resulted in a suspension commencing as of Week 1, the league has allowed skeptics (including people employed by other teams) to wonder why the league has departed from its standard practice.
Standard practice. It was followed regarding the decision not to punish Rice until he entered a guilty plea. It was followed regarding the decision not to put him on paid leave. It was not followed regarding the decision to let the disciplinary case linger into the regular season.
The overriding point is this. The league ordinarily gets these cases resolved before the season starts. By not doing it as to Rice, the league has given people a reason to say, 'That's peculiar.'
Look at it this way. If the league had announced Rice's suspension on Thursday, no one could have raised a credible question about it. It's standard practice to resolve these suspensions before Week 1. The fact that the incident happened nearly a year and a half ago would have made it even more appropriate for the situation to be resolved before the Chiefs face the Chargers three weeks from tonight in Brazil.
The fact that it wasn't is odd, because it represents a deviation from standard practice. Which necessarily creates bad optics for the league.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Report: Terry McLaurin remains 'dug in, frustrated' with the Commanders
Will the saga between Terry McLaurin and the Washington Commanders ever end? While no one knows when the contract dispute between the two sides will end, we should be approaching an unofficial deadline: Week 1 of the 2025 season. The Commanders need McLaurin. Reports out of training camp haven't been favorable for their wide receivers outside of Deebo Samuel. And McLaurin doesn't want to miss games. That would be a lot of money. Remember, after four days of training camp, he reported to the team after drawing fines of $50,000 per day for each day that he missed. So, while we should expect McLaurin to play in Week 1 — he's currently on the physically unable to perform list with an ankle injury — will he be playing under his current contract? Or, will the Commanders strike a deal with their top receiver before the first game against the New York Giants? There is seemingly a report every day about McLaurin and the Commanders, ESPN NFL insider Jeremy Fowler offered the latest on Friday. "From what I'm hearing, there's still a pretty sizable gap in how they see the wide receiver market," Fowler said. "Washington's down here, Terry McLaurin's pretty high up here. I'm told the player is dug in, remains frustrated, not a lot of traction on a trade right now, even though I do know there are some teams that are interested, or have at least called. But right now, I'm told Washington does remain optimistic in this despite some of the smoke around all of the issues, and him still out of practice. They feel like, when push comes to shove, closer to Week 1, they can reach some sort of compromise. It's probably not going to be a situation where he plays out the year on his contract and plays on the franchise tag next year. Like, he needs some sort of contract. They are hoping they can find a sweet spot here, but they're sort of waiting each other out, and meanwhile, this could get ugly." Wait, it's not already ugly? Sure, this situation is tame compared to other contract standoffs we've seen in recent years. But with no movement between the two parties, it's fair to wonder if they can find that middle ground. The problem is, no one, outside of the Commanders and McLaurin's camp, really knows what that middle ground is. Is McLaurin not willing to take anything less than a contract with an average annual value of $30 million? We are now three weeks away from Week 1. Washington offensive coordinator Kliff Kingsbury expressed frustration with McLaurin's absence on Friday. We are reaching a point where you wonder how much McLaurin's absence will impact the Commanders, even when he returns. Long holdouts often lead to slow starts. We shall see. This article originally appeared on Commanders Wire: Commanders, Terry McLaurin still not close on a new contract
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kliff Kingsbury sends a message to Terry McLaurin
The Terry McLaurin saga continues. Washington Commanders offensive coordinator Kliff Kingsbury fielded questions about McLaurin on Friday, and he didn't back down. First, he was asked about how much work he's getting with the wideout, then more questions followed. You'll notice a common theme in Kingsbury's answers: he puts a heavy value on getting his guys on the field. "Yeah, there hasn't been a ton of contact with him," Kingsbury replied. "He's been here, but he's been working with the trainers, so until he gets back on the grass, that's when we'll start building that back up." The next question is around McLaurin's relationship with Jayden Daniels and his understanding of the offensive scheme. "You know, that's one of those deals where it's time on task, and luckily, what they had last year built a lot of rapport and chemistry. Terry understands our system going into year two, so that should expedite the process, but to me, time on task together on the grass is really the only way that you can continue to build." Time on the grass was a common theme throughout Kingsbury's answers, so he was asked about the work he's getting with McLaurin in the classroom, and what the value of that is. "I think not as much as we would if he was a full go, there's no doubt. But, like I said, I'm huge on walkthroughs, on practice, and things like that because until you get on the grass and actually do it and feel the timing, feel the depths of routes and things, I don't know exactly how much you can get out of that. So, I think we're at the point where we need to start getting those guys, when they're available, out here and gelling and seeing what we are as an offense." Again, the common theme is getting the guys on the grass. You can read the playbook, study film, do walkthroughs and drills, but until you do a full workout at game speed, there's no real measure of what the offense can do. While most of the starters sat out against the New England Patriots, McLaurin's absence had a clear impact on this team. Their performance was not great, and the Commanders most definitely need him back on the field. The question still remains, though, will they open their wallets or force Scary Terry to play this season under his current contract with no extension, allowing him to hit free agency in the spring? This article originally appeared on Commanders Wire: Washington Commanders: Kliff Kingsbury sends messge to Terry McLaurin
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What is a 'show cause' penalty in the Michigan football punishment?
Jim Harbaugh's NCAA coaching career is pretty much over -- at least until 2038. That's how long he'll be under show-cause penalties thanks to NCAA investigations into improprieties along the Michigan Wolverines' sideline. Harbaugh spent nine season rebuilding his alma mater into a powerhouse. He left to return to the NFL after winning a national championship in 2023 -- right as a handful of scandals began crash around his program. Harbaugh was already under a four-year NCAA show-cause order and was suspended from the game for a full year after a previous investigation showed he had improper contact with recruits in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. A 10-year sentence handed down Friday will run consecutively with that penalty. When his first show-cause order runs out Aug. 7, 2028, his new countdown clock kicks in. What is an NCAA show-cause penalty? A show-cause penalty is used by the NCAA in cases involving serious rule violations and effectively pin a coach to his or her infractions for a certain amount of time. These orders include specific punishments that follow a coach across any job he or she may be interested in taking in the future. In Harbaugh's case, the NCAA ruling "restrict[s] him from all athletically related activities during the show-cause period." That effectively bans him from coaching in the college ranks for the next 13 years. It doesn't necessarily mean teams can't hire him, but he'll be beholden to the NCAA restrictions throughout his tenure. An interested team could plead its case to why a coach should be freed from his sanctions to take a new job -- showing cause as to why this new program shouldn't be penalized for hiring someone who has a checkered past. They'd have to lay out their argument to an NCAA panel and report back to that panel every six months to update it on the coach in question's progress. The NCAA cannot fire coaches. They can make them incredibly difficult to employ and make almost every other candidate in a job search more appealing. That's the show-cause penalty in a nutshell. This article originally appeared on For The Win: What is a 'show cause' penalty in the Michigan football punishment?
