Bell: Obscure NFL clause now a go-to move for discipline
Minnesota Vikings owners Zygi and Mark Wilf sure bumbled when they thought on Monday they could slip Adrian Peterson back into action without a hitch.
Thankfully, the Wilfs — jolted by immense disapproval that included a pull-out from corporate sponsor Radisson — stumbled upon a solution that should quickly become a template for every NFL team dealing with such sticky matters: The commissioner's exempt list.
It's like the NFL has suddenly passed a new version of instant replay.
It didn't take the typical 24 votes from NFL owners to pass this version of instant replay — just some influential, cash-flush voices from outside the NFL's inner circle (sponsors) and a flow with the NFL command center. Smart lawyering and a seldom-used (ever-used?) application of a exempt list option buried in the NFL Player Personnel Policy manual did the rest.
Typically, reserve list roster exemptions are used as a temporary measure for players who have just come back from a holdout, an injury, or maybe a suspension. Or maybe for a player who can't be with the team due to active military duty.
Yet now it's a discipline mechanism.
With Peterson facing charges of reckless or negligent injury to a child, the Vikings came to their senses and announced their move in the middle of the night on early Wednesday morning. By late Wednesday afternoon the Carolina Panthers made the same arrangement with Greg Hardy, the defensive end appealing a conviction of two counts of domestic violence.
Of course, the NFL won't or can't call it discipline. That would involve hearings and appeals. But it is what it is. Discipline with pay, until further notice. An expensive holding pattern. Peterson and Hardy, due respective salaries this year of $11.75 million and $13.1 million, will be paid during their absence — at least while their legal cases remain unresolved.
As it's written in the manual, the exemption is "available to clubs only in unusual cases."
These are undoubtedly unusual situations.
You'd think that Commissioner Roger Goodell could have just thrown the book at Peterson and Hardy and suspended them under the personal conduct policy.
Hardy has already been convicted by a judge, and Peterson has admitted to causing injuries to his 4-year-old son by beating him with a switch. Goodell once suspended Ben Roethlisberger for four games, and the Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback was never formally charged for the sexual assault accusations levied against him.
Yet with these current cases unresolved, Goodell has learned his lessons from administering quick discipline as he once exercised. The New Orleans Saints bounty scandal changed the paradigm, and more recently the Ray Rice case — with the indefinite suspension now challenged by the players union on appeal — has underscored the need for a deliberate process.
And the players union will seemingly fight to the death on the principle that the commissioner has too much power when it comes to handing out discipline.
If Goodell wanted to suspend the players now under the personal conduct policy, it would have likely backfired without their legal cases resolved.
Players have a right to a hearing and an appeal. The process can typically be completed before the season starts, but Peterson's case surfaced during the season and there was no league action on Hardy — who played in the season opener before being deactivated in Week 2. The process for invoking the conduct policy would have dictated that both of the players would have played this weekend had the NFL initiated action due to the conduct policy.
Still, in a league with initiatives such as "Play 60" aimed at the younger generation, you can't have alleged child abusers running rampant in the backfield unchecked. In a league that goes pink in October to promote breast cancer awareness, it's about time that it took a stronger stance against domestic violence — although it's a shame that it took the Ray Rice episode to change the game.
Follow NFL columnist Jarrett Bell on Twitter @JarrettBell.