_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
Bengals receiver Chris Henry is back, after his latest suspension for violation of the Personal Conduct Policy.
Hooray?
Henry didn’t count against the 53-man roster while he was suspended, and he won’t count against the active roster this week.
The team announced on Monday that the league has given the Bengals a roster exemption for Henry.
This means that he can rejoin the team without the team having to make a roster move to create a spot for him. And it serves only to highlight the need for a tweak in the rules to allow a team with a player who has suffered a death in his immediate family to have a roster exemption until the player can return.
The issue hit the front burner last week, when the Buccaneers would have been faced with having to cut a player and sign a kicker if Matt Bryant couldn’t play a day after burying his infant son. The situation arguably pressured Bryant to play, given that one of his teammates would have lost his spot on the team if Bryant had taken the week off.
Chris Mortensen of ESPN reported on Sunday that the Competition Committee will likely look at this rule in the offseason.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Why Not look at it now? What is the NFL, Congress? No. Some S-Head like Henry gets a roster exemption? This all could be solved by simply coming up with the exemption and emailing everyone on the damn committee. The good get punished while the S-Heads get there money, huh TO? Stupid NFL. The NHL passed a rule during the Playoffs last year and you can not even freaking get off your $2000 suit pant asses and do something? Fat Cat pigs!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.6 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 10:19 am
An exemption for Henry but not for Bryant is truly retarded. That’s gotta be the first thing fixed in the offseason.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 10:25 am
the NFL is reatarded. They act like they can’t make a simple and logical decision by stating that they will look into it in the off season. The government is more responsive.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.5 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 10:25 am
How nice the NFL big shots can come up with a plan for NFL teams for players with a criminal record by giving them an exemption while they are suspended for being stupid, yet a player loses a child (Matt Bryant) and that player has no time to grieve because if he chooses not to play, his team is forced to cut a player to bring someone in for a week so that player can be with his family in a time of need. I think Roger Goodell should be suspended for a week for being stupid! Just another case of the NFL not taking care of its players current and past! At least give a player the choice of playing or time to grieve.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.35 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Why is the NFL always reactionary in their rule changes? Can’t they comb through the books and look for situations like this pre-emptively? If they need to hire someone to do it, I’m available.
And is this really the first time this has come up? Obviously no.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Why doesn’t the NFL change the rule today?
(a) Laziness
(b) Heartlessness
(c) Stupidity
(d) All of the above
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Absolutely that rule needs to be changed.
Now….Chris Henry’s back!
/grabs popcorn
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 10:44 am
What is the basis for Henry’s exemption? Work release?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 10:47 am
No wonder why some teams like the Bengals will still draft players with checkered pasts. If they get suspended during the their pro careers, it doesn’t affect the teams roster status. NFL deserving for Worst Person in the World.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 10:53 am
The NFL didn’t give Henry an exemption specifically. All teams are given exemptions for players coming off suspensions. I agree that the situation is messed up with Bryant not being able to get one, but this has nothing to do with Henry. All suspended players end up with exemptions, that’s how it works.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I know the plan for the criminals was already in place, my point is the “Commish” should have used common sense and taken action for Bryant and then address it in the off season. Isn’t that what he is paid for?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Seems to me that Bryant had a choice. He made the choice to be there with his team, to his credit. And really, who gives a damn if the Bucs have to play a game without a kicker? 99% of the time, PFT Planet will harp that kickers aren’t real football players anyway. Starting to look like the concern is more for the team potentially having to do without a kicker or to have to bring one in at the expense of the 53rd best player on the team than Matt Bryant’s ability to take more time to grieve for his son with his family. He always had that choice, no way he was going to be docked a red cent if that’s what he had chosen to do.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.35 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 11:03 am
@ Joe in Raliegh..
My edumacation ain’t very goods but id’s says D.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
September 30th, 2008 at 11:11 am
While obviously the NFL should’ve granted the exception for Bryant, I’m dumbfounded by the statement (here repeatedly) that Bryant was pressured to play because a teammate would have lost his job in order to cut another kicker.
What am I missing? In that case, wouldn’t the Bucs have cut Bryant for one or two weeks and then re-signed him afterwards? Yes, Bryant would have missed one or two paychecks, but there are ways for the team to make that up to him. Bryant wouldn’t have played for another team in the interim, and no matter how good his replacement kicked, the Bucs wouldn’t have kept him over Bryant.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 11:12 am
The reason the league can’t change the rule immediately has nothing to do with “laziness”, “heartlessness”, or “stupidity”, but because of the simple fact that right or wrong, the entire season needs to be played under the same set of rules.
Changing rules midseason, even rules like this, sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 11:25 am
why is it that Major League Baseball (one of the worst run sports in the category of pro sports) can institute a major change in the rules (i.e. instant replay) at the end of a season but the NFL can’t make a single change until after the season????? Total failure by the league to react reasonably to a situation.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.75 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 11:46 am
If the Bucs had “temporarily” cut Bryant, a team in need could have grabbed him off waivers. You don’t cut good players.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
September 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Yes; that was an exceedingly poor move on the part of Major League Baseball to implement rules changes during the season. They, too, should have waited until after this season was over.
Changing the rules mid-race (or mid-game, or mid-season…really, it’s reasonable to think of the entire season as one big game, with the winner of the single game being the champion of the entire season) is never right.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
What’s “extremely dangerous” about giving a guy who lost a child the week off without having to take release him or one of his teammates. Ooooh, that’s so DANGEROUS! Are you kidding me?!
Taking Pacman’s money after he makes it rain is dangerous. Playing for the Rams after suffering 2 major head injuries is dangerous. Going to nightclubs and spraying Floyd Mayweather with champagne is dangerous. Changing a nonsensical rule to help a grieving parent in anything but dangerous. It’s smart and it sends the right message to the fans, players and the NFLPA.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
So this is what the NFL is saying: “Go get arrested for everything from jaywalking to murder and we’ll let you back to play w/o having to take a roster spot. But you lose a family member you better be there on Sunday or we will fine and/or suspend you and no way we give out a roster exception.” Great image on this NFL. Ya, look at it on March when it hopefully will not matter. I love the NFL, but come on guys, who really would have complained if the Bucs got an exception to sign a kicker (a kicker??) for 1 week??!!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
The NFL moved a game because of a hurricane. They didn’t announce that they were going to do it at the beginning of the season. They did it because it was the right thing to do at the time, given the circumstances.
Using Kurt W. Weber’s logic, the teams should have taken the field during the storm or forfeited. Changing the schedule in mid-season (since it’s, you know, one big game) would have been extremely dangerous.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Tragedy can strike at any time…Are we going to see something else happen during this season? Hopefully not, but it would be wise of the NFL to prepare. I am so sick of the NFL Execs waiting until the end of the season to do something. If you find something wrong with your game, then fix it on the spot.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
September 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I don’t think they should change a rule in the middle of the season, but I do think they should have had the foresight to have planned for something like this so they don’t look so bad.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
October 1st, 2008 at 12:20 am
Changing a rule mid season means nothing but correcting a wrong. ooooooh. It is not going and chnging a rule during the fact? It is changing a rule and implementing it for everyone. It means, if Hochuli blows the wistle on a blown call this week and it stands because of a rule, we fix it and next week it is in place for everyone. They play by the same freaking rules. Who cares if it was different weak one. It is still Football. It would not change the fabric/makeup/principles of the freaking game. Lord. How freaking important are we that oooh we can’t stop peeing on the floor mid-stream to start again into the toilet. Get Real!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
October 1st, 2008 at 9:51 am
The rules become meaningless if we can change them whenever we want. It’ll be like playing a petulant child at a boardgame. This team complains, go ahead and change it. It sets a bad precedent. There is a time and place to change the rules, and fortunately it is in the off season. It would be unfair to the teams that got caught in the rule during the season if every other team gets to reap the benefits of a rule change during the same season.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated