Chief's Linebacker Arrested for Theft

Mike Vrabel was arrested at a casino. He's saying it's all a miscommunication. Hopefully so. But if he is found guilty of wrongdoing, I wonder if the league will suspend him even though he event occurred during the lockout?


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Kansas-City-Chiefs-Mike-Vrabel-arrested-for-theft-at-casino-040411

They won't suspend him. He had a few too many drinks, we have all been there, and thought he didnnt order something he did. Alread admitted it is his fault and will pay. It is a nothing story.

Yeah, it's a nothing story.
No shotguns, rapings or assaults here I'm afraid.
Mangler that's a good point, I would guess that as the players are exempt from league punishment at the moment. The players can have no contact with their management, facilities etc so are effectively no longer employed by them, and if they're not employed by their franchises they're not representing the league.
Anyone else know ?

I doubt that's the case Grizz. I really can't see Aqib Talib getting away with his latest altercation without a suspension.

Worth looking into Pr4wn.
At the moment these guys aren't getting paid so they're not employed by their franchises, which should mean they're not representing the league and therefore not tied to NFL rules.
Talib will be sewing postbags soon so what the league do is irrlevant

You have no idea how angry I am about that. He's probably our best player and he's let so many people down.

I would suggest its the same as any strike situation. They are still under contract, but in effect withdrawing their labour due to dispute over T's & C's. Once the dispute is over, contractual terms (including behavioural rules) can probably be enforced (and retrospectively) excepting where the CBA changes the rules.

Its unlikely any changes will include major changes to the behaviour rules though, so I'd say Vrabel gets a slap on the wrist, but Talib is in hotter water.

You may well be right Skins.
In normal time the players are employed by the franchises and the franchises agree to adhere to league rules, therefore tying the players to whatever behavioral rule the league write, but as the players are no longer getting paid by their franchises can they be regarded as employees ?
And as there is no contract between the league and the franchises that commits the teams to league rules, can the players still be tied to the rules ?
I agree it'll more likely be retrospective action, whether this is fair or not is debatable....

Actually Grizzly, I suspect there is a contract between the league and each or all franchises. For instance, the league has to approve a new franchise/franchise move so I suspect there must be underlying contractual powers.

In this case, there's probably catch all wording in player contracts that ties them into the league contract. Technically they are still under contract, but without a CBA, I doubt its enforceable.

Skins - I'm sure you're right, but at the moment there is no league, or at least no members in it, so what rules exist that players/franchises are tied by ?

The league exists as a corporate entity, so its contracts are legally enforceable. Like any labour dispute though, a corporate entity is not going to enforce contract during a labour dispute.

I guess whether these issues are punishable depends on whether the CBA they eventually sign will cover indiscretions during the dispute.

In Talib's case, I suspect he's more interested in staying out of jail right now than what the league can/will do!