In this week's column, Hodes and I decided to take a closer look at the increasingly stringent nature of the NFL and NBA conduct policies, and decide which of the two was getting more out of hand. A good case can be made for both, but on the heels of the ludicrous suspension of Adam "Pacman" Jones of the Tennessee Titans for an entire 16-game slate, the NFL takes the cake.
Paul Tagliabue was an excellent commissioner, but his policies were unreasonable at times. Roger Goodell, despite his best efforts and good intentions, has not exercised his authority to the appropriate degree since taking over for Tagliabue in 2006.
Before delving into the off-the-field conduct policies, I felt it was best to take a closer look at in-game rules. The sensible topic to discuss here is touchdown celebrations. Those in favor of curtailing or eliminating touchdown celebrations argue to tell players to "act like they've been there before." Well, all NFL players who score a touchdown have certainly been there before, but is it really necessary to so closely monitor their actions after they score a touchdown and the clock is stopped? The answer to the question should be a resounding no. The latest addition to the rules governing touchdown celebrations, instituted in 2006, states that any player who "leaves his feet or uses a prop" was to be flagged for a 15-yard penalty.
So let's get this straight: We're telling the premier athletes in the world not to jump in the air after they score a touchdown? Since when do we watch athletes like T.O. and Chad Johnson for their stoicism? If "Ocho Cinco" wants to slam dunk the pigskin or use a prop after he finally burns DeAngelo Hall, why shouldn't he be able to? The antics of the NFL's "celebrators" are entertaining, and they inject a certain levity into the games that everyone can appreciate.
The recent suspensions of Pacman Jones (cornerback, Tennessee Titans) and Chris Henry (wide receiver, Cincinnati Bengals) were unnecessarily harsh on both accounts. While both players deserved to be reprimanded and subsequently disciplined for their actions, their suspensions (16 and eight games, respectively) should have been at least half as long. Instead, Goodell decided to make an unfair example of a player (Pacman) who hasn't even been convicted in the most high-profile incidents for which he's being questioned. An eight-game suspension for Pacman and a four-game suspension for Chris Henry would have more than sufficed, and almost certainly would have had the same effect as the longer suspensions upon which Goodell decided.
Some might label such a position as being overly soft. It's not. Instead of coming out with his guns blazing, Goodell could have handed down shorter suspensions and issued a serious ultimatum to all players threatening harsher punishments for future transgressions. If his message was delivered with the proper level of severity and urgency, a year from now, the effects would be the same.
In taking the lenient stances I have assumed on these issues, I am not undermining the significance of misbehaving professional athletes. The last thing an organization like the NFL should want is a league of miscreants who behave selfishly. However, the rules governing on-field behavior and the recent suspensions of two players for a combined 24 games have left a bad taste in my mouth. The intended goals of stricter policies are admirable, but the policies themselves and the degree to which they have been enforced have been unnecessary and perhaps ultimately counter-productive.
