Porter hopes to put feud behind him

[Kirkendall]

Interesting. I suppose the end result would still hang on the definition of 'significant', in other words was Levi significantly hurt? Unfortunately all these sorts of rules are open to interpretation; then again, if they were clearly defined there would be too many loopholes.

That's exactly my point. There's no clear definition of conduct. Everyone here has a different view of proper conduct and if the league is relying on the individual's perspective, then nothing will change.

Again, I know I'm in the minority and most people are content that something is being done. And I really hope that it works out so we can move on. But I believe that tougher consequences won't change anything. People don't think of their consequences when in the middle of their actions. Emotions tend to trump wisdom and awareness. If they did, Roger Goodell could focus more on leading a system to discover HGH instead of playing the role of mother.

IMHO, they failed to attack the root of the problem -- teams drafting guys that are clearly a "red flag" risks. They're being reactive rather than proactive. Would attacking this at the draft resolve all problems? Not realistically. Would it improve the image? I believe so. And no, I don't have any idea how they would define who gets in and who doesn't without avoiding a lawsuit or an objection from the player's union. Perhaps it was discussed and shot down by the union. I don't know.

But I was a little disappointed that this was the best they could do.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

I just went to ESPNs site and saw the headline ...

"Porter offers to apologize to Jones for Vegas fight"

Then you go to the article and Porter says:

"If he truly believes, if he feels like I was wrong, I'm sorry."

Call me crazy, but the headline simply completely misrepresents what Porter actually says. He DOES NOT offer an apology for the FIGHT. If I was Jones, this would frustrate the heck out of me.

Sounds similar to his snide comments regarding Carson's knee injury in '05 - the guy's just one big ignorant mouth that's as big as his ass.

[Defender]

I see the commisioner saying it's his rule and he'll use it as he sees fit. He'll leave the Porter incident alone because 1) it's Porter's first off-field incident and 2) the pressure to do something (if any at all) won't be nearly as much as there was for Pacman, Henry, and Tank Johnson when he's released.

The unspoken third reason is since Joey Porter has shown tendancies that he's a closet member of the gay community (his Cowher kiss), he doesn't want the NFL to appear homophobic, thus the inherent pressure from GLAAD.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Interesting. I suppose the end result would still hang on the definition of 'significant', in other words was Levi significantly hurt? Unfortunately all these sorts of rules are open to interpretation; then again, if they were clearly defined there would be too many loopholes.

That's exactly my point. There's no clear definition of conduct. Everyone here has a different view of proper conduct and if the league is relying on the individual's perspective, then nothing will change.

Again, I know I'm in the minority and most people are content that something is being done. And I really hope that it works out so we can move on. But I believe that tougher consequences won't change anything. People don't think of their consequences when in the middle of their actions. Emotions tend to trump wisdom and awareness. If they did, Roger Goodell could focus more on leading a system to discover HGH instead of playing the role of mother.

IMHO, they failed to attack the root of the problem -- teams drafting guys that are clearly a "red flag" risks. They're being reactive rather than proactive. Would attacking this at the draft resolve all problems? Not realistically. Would it improve the image? I believe so. And no, I don't have any idea how they would define who gets in and who doesn't without avoiding a lawsuit or an objection from the player's union. Perhaps it was discussed and shot down by the union. I don't know.

But I was a little disappointed that this was the best they could do.

2 things:

1) The stronger penalties may not deter the players, but they may address the second issue you mention, that of teams drafting a**h***s. If I'm thinking of taking a risk on a guy with 1st round talent and 7th round character, maybe I don't take him in the 2nd round after this if I'm afraid of losing him for a season. Maybe that guy falls to the second day and is easier and cheaper to cut if he screws up. So there is a mechanism there.

2) Regarding the scumbags, I think this is meant to be a deterrent to recidivism in the same way that the death penalty is - the point isn't to rehabilitate them (as you point out, I don't think they can be), the point is to get rid of them.

[jjakq27]

I see the commisioner saying it's his rule and he'll use it as he sees fit. He'll leave the Porter incident alone because 1) it's Porter's first off-field incident and 2) the pressure to do something (if any at all) won't be nearly as much as there was for Pacman, Henry, and Tank Johnson when he's released.

The unspoken third reason is since Joey Porter has shown tendancies that he's a closet member of the gay community (his Cowher kiss), he doesn't want the NFL to appear homophobic, thus the inherent pressure from GLAAD.

I think that Godell will have to do something to Porter. It hasn't gotten the airplay that Pacman and Henry have but it is still unacceptable and looks bad whether it is his first offense or not. It might only be a game or two but assault is still assault and it is even worse because it is a member of the fraternity.

BTW, did anyone ever hear why the whole thing happened in the first place?

[membengal]

If ESPN gives this story enough TV pub, maybe Roger will see fit to issue a suspension.

Heh. Golf clap to you sir. Absolute feckin' quality.