Bell: Ray Rice case shows flaws of Roger Goodell's authority

For all of the attempts by the NFL players union in recent years to wrest power from Commissioner Roger Goodell in handling discipline, nothing made its case like this Ray Rice saga.

A second day of hearings concluded Thursday before former U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones, mutually agreed by the sides as arbitrator for Rice's appeal of his indefinite suspension, and it's apparent the proceedings might offer a glimpse into the future.

Something must give in the process as the NFL works to revise its personal conduct policy.

Weeks after Goodell declared "nothing is off the table" in considering the new policy, the NFL Players Association predictably submitted a proposal last week again calling for neutral arbitration for all off-the-field discipline. That would be similar to the process for drug suspensions.

With Goodell's bungling of the Rice case, the timing is right for the union to aim at stripping more of the commissioner's power, which it couldn't accomplish during the last labor negotiations. Surely, you've heard the NFLPA's "judge, jury, executioner" punchline when referring to Goodell.

NFL STATS CENTRAL: The latest NFL scores, schedules, odds, stats and more.

That rhetoric won't go away.

Revising the personal conduct policy, with a collective bargaining agreement running through 2020, is in the hands of the NFL. The league has said that it wants "input" from players in crafting the policy, but there's gray area in that when it's not an official bargaining session.

It's obvious the climate is such that the league needs to restore the burned bridges with the players, not to mention its credibility with the public.

The idea of establishing a disciplinary panel with members jointly appointed by the NFL and the NFLPA has a lot of merit. But if the appeals went to Goodell's desk, would it be enough?

Just like the years that passed while talks for HGH testing stalled, it's status quo business until a new policy and process is established.

It should come as no surprise, despite some critics urging the NFL to quickly reinstate Adrian Peterson from the "exempt" list with his child abuse case essentially resolved, the league informed the Minnesota Vikings running back that his case will be reviewed under the conduct policy.

If there's anything learned from the Rice fiasco, it's this: Don't rush to judgment.

Maybe in the end the NFL will reinstate Peterson and suspend him for, say, six games for violation the domestic violence policy. But to maintain any shred of order — despite the issues swirling about — the league needs to work through its process with Peterson, which will include input from evaluation of professionals.

Remember, he's still facing a suspension and/or other forms of discipline.

That means a hearing and the right to appeal. One argument is that with Peterson already missing eight games, he should be allowed to play while his NFL discipline is settled. Players who face drug suspensions are allowed to continue through the appeals process, so why not Peterson?

Because he struck a deal to land on the exempt list, which included getting paid his weekly game checks for an $11.75 million base salary.

Same for Greg Hardy, the Carolina Panthers defensive end on the exempt list while awaiting a jury trial for a guilty bench conviction on domestic assault charges. Hardy, due $13 million for the season, agreed to a paid leave of absence.

Panthers coach Ron Rivera may want Hardy, the lifeblood of the defense, reinstated while his case works through the legal system. But what message would that send as the NFL grits its teeth over domestic violence issues?

Consider the potential conflict: Hardy gets a sack. Break to commercial, with a PSA for the NFL's "No More" campaign. Not a good look.

Some legal experts don't put much stock into the weight of bench convictions in the North Carolina judicial system, but it is what it is: Hardy's case wasn't thrown out by the judge.

If Hardy prevails, he can't argue he lost wages.

These three high-profile cases confronting the NFL are real-life examples that illustrate the complexities that exist in trying to craft a policy on paper that makes sense for all involved — while enhancing credibility with the public and sponsors.

One size doesn't fit all. The revised policy will have to reflect that. There are nuances in laws from state to state. Due process for the accused. The question of whether a player should be paid while on a leave of absence to address legal issues. The threat of bogus charges that victimize players.

There is so much to sort out. And too much to expect one person to have all the answers.

If there's anything learned from the Rice fiasco, it's this: Don't rush to judgment.

Follow columnist Jarrett Bell on Twitter @JarrettBell.