FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Dan TM is Stupendous Man said 11/09, 01:40 PM
MLB can afford to have a bereavement policy, the NFL can't. First, there are more than ten times as many games per season in baseball. Second, each team has an elaborate farm system, and baseball strategy is pretty universal, so plugging a guy in is simple and doesn't have a huge effect on the team.

The reason this is a "business decision" for the Vikes is that they're concerned about the precedent. It doesn't matter that Williamson isn't terribly crucial to their game plan; if AD suddenly had to skip out on a game after preparing all week to have them, no matter how serious the reason, it would mess up the team. But if there are no consequences for Williamson, there can't be for Peterson.

When you take a job, you have to understand the terms for taking time off. I'm a temp, and I understand that if I miss work, I don't get paid, whether I have a hangover or pneumonia. I weigh that against how important it is for me to not be at work, and make my choice. That's the entire purpose of consequences.

And the consequence is appropriate. You didn't show up for this game, you don't get paid for this game.

Dan TM is Stupendous Man said 11/09, 02:15 PM
The NFL's treatment of retired players is VERY wrong. But that's not what we're talking about, so why bring it up?

The question is, is it WRONG for the Vikings to have docked Williamson's pay? And no, the policy had been established, Williamson was told what the consequence would be if he didn't play, and he made his choice.

The problem is that we're dealing with legalese here; there's no other way to deal with pay-related matters. And that means you can't say things like "without a damn good reason," because where do you draw the line? Seeing a dying relative, or going to a funeral, are really the only other excuses I can think of that are even debateable. So... is it excusable to miss a game for a funeral of a second cousin? A childhood friend? A grandparent? A sibling? A spouse? Where does that line get drawn?

I think it's best that there isn't an NFL policy about it, enabling each team to take its own stance, which allows for extenuating circumstances.

And again, the fine is fairly light. It's the same penalty you get if you hit a player too hard. It's at the "we understand why you did it, but we have to keep these things in check" level.

Dan TM is Stupendous Man said 11/09, 02:52 PM
What if it was a second cousin who was basically his brother? You can't leave that kind of fuzziness open - everything must be set in stone if you're going to have a policy.

I hate to break it to you, but this is the world we live in: everything IS a business decision. If the NFL decides to institute a bereavement policy, that's a business decision, and it would be done because the financial risks of not having one (fan disapproval, player strikes) are too great.
Given that Williamson's response was "I don't care if they would have [taken] my pay for the rest of the year, I was going home. It wouldn't have mattered to me," I'd have to say he's not irate about the decision. He'll appeal to the NFLPA, of course. Who wouldn't? I've appealed parking tickets that were clearly my fault, because I thought there was a small chance I'd get my money back. Essentially, that's a business decision too.
And I have to take issue with your saying "if you dont take care of your players, you wont have a league worth a damn." The NFL takes pretty darn good care of their current players; it's the retirees that can't get care. And once again, we're not here to talk about them.