The Contradictive Wording Of the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy

Adam "Pacman" Jones (Cowboys), Brandon Marshall (Broncos), Larry Johnson (Chiefs), and most recently, Plaxico Burress (Giants), are pro football players whose names have been in the news this season for having violated the National Football League's Personal Conduct Policy. What exactly is the league's Personal Conduct Policy?

The official announcement of the policy came on April 10, 2007, amidst the league's rumored desire to crack down on its players' off-field behavior. Since its inception, the policy has resulted in many NFL players being suspended for violation of the policy.

This post is not about whether the policy is good or not. In my opinion, the policy is a no-brainer and makes official the type of behavior that should be a given by any mature and responsible adult...and especially for public figures like pro football players.

Rather, I would like to take to task some of the wording of the policy.

On the surface, the policy is a good one. However, there are a couple of parts of the policy that I find problematic and I think they need to be addressed by the league.

The wording in the General Policy portion is clear and self-explanatory (except for the last paragraph):

Engaging in violent and/or criminal activity is unacceptable and constitutes conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League. Such conduct alienates the fans on whom the success of the League depends and has negative and sometimes tragic consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator.

The League is committed to promoting and encouraging lawful conduct and to providing a safe and professional workplace for its employees.

Safe workplace? Isn't that contradictory to the nature of a football field? Just look at the lists of injured players week in and week out in the NFL. Was the NFL providing a safe workplace for those employees on the injured reserve list? Because football is a violent game, how is it possible for the league to provide a safe workplace for its employees?

In this area, the NFL is, by nature of the game, failing at its own policy.

It gets more interesting in the Prohibited Conduct portion (note: "Covered Persons" include players, coaches, front office personnel, and all employees of the NFL and its organizations):

It will be considered conduct detrimental for Covered Persons to engage in (or to aid, abet or conspire to engage in or to incite) violent and/or criminal activity. Examples of such Prohibited Conduct include, without limitation: any crime involving the use or threat of physical violence to a person or persons; the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime; possession or distribution of a weapon in violation of state or federal law; involvement in "hate crimes" or crimes of domestic violence; theft, larceny or other property crimes; sex offenses; racketeering; money laundering; obstruction of justice; resisting arrest; fraud; and violent or threatening conduct. Additionally, Covered Persons shall not by their words or conduct suggest that criminal activity is acceptable or condoned within the NFL.

Again, how is it possible for the league to abide by its own policy here? Every football player knows that the "threat of physical violence" is a given every time they step onto a football field.

Sure, the wording in question says "any crime involving use or threat of physical violence to a person", but is the physical violence inherent to the legal game of football still not physically violent?

Semantics, some may say. But words should never be thrown around so carelessly as the NFL has in this instance.

I'm Kelly Martinez and I approve of this blog.