Why it matters

A Ray Rice appeal is absolutely necessary for precedent purposes. (USATSI)

How do you defend Ray Rice? Stop answering that, Paul George: it's a rhetorical question. Rice's actions were indefensible.

Which is what makes the NFLPA's job in the coming days -- the union has until Tuesday night to file an appeal for Rice's suspension and will likely do so -- and weeks/months so difficult.

(UPDATE: The NFLPA filed its appeal Tuesday night.)

The union has to defend Rice. Or, more technically, it has to defend against Rice's punishment and the possibility of letting the league set a bad precedent.

The words "have to" there are no joke: the union is required to push on this appeal even if the misconception of "defending Rice" might pop up in the minds of people in the general public as the wrong thing to do. It's not, though.

See, Rice's actions -- in a vacuum -- are worth an indefinite suspension. He punched his fiancée in the face. On camera. Knocking her unconscious.

But the NFL didn't suspend Rice indefinitely based on what he did. The league suspended Rice two games for what he did. Then public outcry snowballed into a flat-out vortex of outrage on the Monday after Week 1 when the video from inside the elevator emerged.

The Ravens and NFL acted swiftly, with Rice's team releasing him and Roger Goodell hammering Rice with the indefinite suspension.

Again, a perfectly logical move in a vacuum. But it's not a fair one based on the concept of double jeopardy. Someone can't be punished twice for the same crime, which is even set out fairly explicitly in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Article 46, Section 4 of the 2011 CBA specifically sets out "One Penalty" for players under Commissioner discipline.

"The Commissioner and the Club will not both discipline a player for the same act or conduct," the CBA reads. "The Commissioner's disciplinary action will preclude or supersede disciplinary action by any Club for the same act or conduct."

This is precisely why the Ravens were forced to release Rice. They couldn't suspend him after he had already received the two-game league suspension. And theoretically, the league shouldn't be able to double down on Rice's punishment, either, although the CBA isn't explicit in terms of shutting down double jeopardy.

The logic from the NFL is, basically, "things changed." (My words.) But -- even if he straight-up lied -- that's not Rice's fault. He didn't investigate the incident and he's not responsible for doling out punishment. The league is.

The league admittedly failed at properly punishing Rice and tried to make amends for that by hitting Rice with a second, more aggressive punishment.

The problem: This sort of thing that is the very definition of a due process violation, which as union spokesman George Atallah pointed out recently, "is precisely the reason we exist."

"[Making sure due process gets followed] is precisely the reason we exist," Atallah said. "We want to be sure to make a distinction between supporting a player's fair due-process rights under our collective bargaining agreement while also, of course, not agreeing with the actions that everybody has seen play out on video.

"We have an obligation as a union to our members to make sure that their rights are not infringed upon. It's not only our fiduciary obligation to them, but it is required by labor law. The message should be clear that the incidents involving any one of our members reverberate and have a broader impact on all players."

Due process is a phrase being thrown around a lot these days when discussing off-field NFL situations. The league and its teams want to wait and see what happens in the legal process before handing out punishment for guys like Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald.

Making sure everyone gets that due process is fair. That is precisely why Rice's appeal is so necessary, especially when you consider the potential precedent here. The NFL can't be allowed to punish Rice repeatedly for the same action just because the action was later perceived as more problematic than when the initial punishment was issued.

Hypothetically, a player is arrested for DUI and suspended two games. In the middle of the suspension, video emerges of the DUI, making it appear worse than initially believed (maybe the hypothetical player is filmed going back and forth with a police officer; make up whatever circumstances you want). The league then ratchets up the suspension, using the Rice case as precedent.

It's not something anyone should want to see happening, mainly because it's such a dangerous and wide-open precedent.

The reasoning for Rice's indefinite suspension is wholly justified. Look at the tape. But the process for arriving there is flawed.

Regardless of what you think about Rice's actions, no one wants a world where people can be arbitrarily punished multiple times for the same crime, no matter how heinous it is.

NFL Hot News

Panthers deactivate DE Greg Hardy shortly before kickoff Sunday



The Panthers decided to deactivate defensive end Greg Hardy shortly before the kickoff of their game today against the Lions. The move was first reported by NFL Network's Albert Breer.Hardy was found guilty of assaulting a female and communicating threats in July. Hardy appealed his conviction and will face a jury trial in November. He played in Week 1, recording four tackles, one sack and one forced fumble.



Hardy would probably be playing today if not for for Ray Rice. As it is, he has been benched by the team, and his future in Carolina is way up in the air. It's a major loss for the Panthers' defense and IDP owners as the superb pass-rusher is one of the top defensive linemen in the league. Similar to what the Vikings are doing with Adrian Peterson, expect the Panthers to examine Hardy's long-term status with them very soon. For now, owners should consider him out indefinitely. That's good news for upcoming opponents on Carolina's schedule. That consists of the Steelers, Ravens and Bears in the next three weeks.