APRTW wrote:

All Troy Polamalu(notes) wanted to do was let his wife know he was OK.

The Pittsburgh Steelers star left Sunday's game with concussion-like symptoms after he made a crucial tackle of Jacksonville Jaguars running back Maurice Jones-Drew(notes). Given his prior history with the brain injuries, there was added reason for concern. After Polamalu was assessed by doctors on the sideline, Polamalu borrowed one of their cell phones to call his wife and let her know he was doing fine.

That call ended up costing him $10,000.

The NFL fined Polamalu on Friday for having a cell phone on the field during the game. It's against NFL rules to have cell phones or electronic equipment near bench areas from 90 minutes before kickoff through the end of the game. Polamalu clearly was in violation with his mid-game phone call.

Why can't common sense prevail, though? As Steelers coach Mike Tomlin said earlier this week, "He wasn't checking his bank account." He wasn't pumping in Kanye on his iPod or plugging Head & Shoulders or drawing attention to himself like Joe Horn or tweeting to fans about the game. Polamalu called his wife to let her know that he didn't suffer a potentially life-altering injury.

The NFL likes to hide behind its rules, as if they're immovable decrees set up on high rather than arbitrary regulations written by the league itself every offseason. It's easier to fine Polamalu and insincerely claim "our hands are tied" rather than view every situation separately and judge them on their merits.

It's as if the league thinks that letting Polamalu get by without a fine is going to lead to a cell phone revolution on the sidelines. "If we let Troy call his wife, what's to stop Tony Romo(notes) from calling his the next time he gets hurt." The league isn't wrong to want to police the sideline from electronics. It's a situation wrought with potential issues. The problem is that the NFL believes making an exception for Polamalu would undercut its own rules.

Nonsense. Despite what the NFL would like you to believe, discipline isn't always the answer. Release a statement saying that cell phone use is illegal and will draw a fine in the future but, in this one particular circumstance, Polamalu won't receive a fine due to extenuating circumstances. Calming a worried wife deserves the benefit of the doubt

I understand what you're saying, but you can bet that if the NFL had let Palomalu slide, the next time it happened and they tried to fine the player the NFLPA would have been crying foul. I advise employers all the time--make no exceptions or, if you do, throw out the rule because it just became unenforceable.

If Tomilin is so worried about common sense prevailing, why not send Palomalu into the locker room to make the call?  Why not have a staff member make the call?

I get what you're saying, I really do.  But I've got an office full of files of lawsuits that resulted from someone making an exception. No good deed goes unpunished.

forsberg_us wrote:

I advise employers all the time--make no exceptions or, if you do, throw out the rule because it just became unenforceable.

If Tomilin is so worried about common sense prevailing, why not send Palomalu into the locker room to make the call?  Why not have a staff member make the call?

I get what you're saying, I really do.  But I've got an office full of files of lawsuits that resulted from someone making an exception. No good deed goes unpunished.

Does it become unenforceable or just challengeable?   Plus I believe the rule is that a player cant use a phone during or some many hours prior too.

forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Then why punish Palomalu and Hawk the same.  One acted classless and the other did something that ment on harm.

Been a while since I looked at the NFL's CBA, but I'm pretty sure fines are governed by the agreement.

I know Ocowhatever got a 25,000 fine for tweeting during a game.

forsberg_us wrote:

The NFL is a bad example, but in the real world unenforceable and subject to challenge are the same. Suppose your employer has a "no personal calls during work hours policy". Someone in your department is in a bad accident and you call home to tell your wife you're ok. Next week a female employee, or a black employee or some guy with a prior workers comp claim, or some guy who once took FMLA leave violates the rule and gets fired. It will cost the employer around $75-100K to defend the lawsuit through trial, and the jury will be instructed that it can infer discrimination because of the disparate application of the policy. If the employer loses the trial, not only do they have to pay damages, but they also have to pay the employee's attorney's fees (another $75-100K).

So your choice is not enforce the policy or enforce it and guarantee that you're going to pay a lot of money to your lawyers and potentially pay a lot to the plaintiff and his/her lawyer.

You going to enforce the policy?

Does this apply in podunk USA?