The Redskins’ statement indicated they weren’t planning to play recently acquired linebacker Reuben Foster until his latest legal situation concludes, and now they would not have an option to do so.
The NFL will place the second-year defender on its commissioner’s exempt list, Tom Pelissero of NFL.com reports (on Twitter). Foster will now be away from his new team — for on-field matters — while the league reviews his situation.
Foster will not count against the Redskins’ 53-man roster but will be paid. He has $257K in 2018 base salary remaining. Foster cannot practice with the Redskins while on this list, but with Washington’s permission, can attend meetings or rehab sessions.
Redskins running back Adrian Peterson spent most of the 2014 season on this list, as did Greg Hardy, who saw a domestic violence case pave his way out of football.
The 49ers cut Foster after he was arrested for alleged domestic violence, his third arrest of 2018, and the Redskins were the only team to place a waiver claim on him. He would have been eligible to play in Washington’s Week 13 game, although Redskins VP of player personnel Doug Williams said he wouldn’t have suited up, had the NFL not placed him on its exempt list.
This could end Foster’s season. It’s hard to imagine the legal process unfolding swiftly enough that the embattled linebacker will be able to return before Washington’s season concludes. This move will be for the future, but the Redskins are taking a major PR risk for a player who may never play for them. The team, though, took a chance on a talented defender that could be under rookie-contract control through the 2021 season.
Assume you mean off field issues.
And *if* he is clearer again *and* stays clean, it’s a heck of a pick up.
No, I think the sentence is awkwardly worded but correct. The writer is saying he will remain away from the team while the *team* is on-field, though he’s still able to join them for off-field action like meetings and rehab, as mentioned later in the article.
Since this is common place now in the NFL and only teams who cut the player are expected to uphold moral codes while other teams swoop them up without having too, teams should be able to place a player on leave while legal troubles get sorted out instead of being forced with the “moral” decision and watch other teams swoop up the player.
That’s not a bad idea, but you know as well as I do, most people would think that’s not enough even though he hasn’t been convicted of anything yet… additionally, being arrested 3 times in one year should result in an automatic yearly suspension. It is shockingly easy to not be arrested as a young man and adult, some people apparently have issues with staying out of trouble. And there should be a no tolerance policy of not being a dumbass. Seriously, 3 times in one year when most people don’t get arrested once in a lifetime.
Very true!
I would refer to Jim Carey’s advice in Liar, Liar.
“Stop breaking the law [radio edit]!”
if found guilty foster could be locked up, as well serve additional time for violating probation. esp domestic violence
The woman in this case appears to be a complete flake, levelling accusations, recanting accusations, blackmailing Foster into spending time with her. She may just be the flakey girlfriend à la Fatal Attraction.
Until there’s some legal proof that these allegations correspond with reality, I’m not sure the Commissioner should be able to suspend the career of a player. If San Francisco chooses to set an accusation as the standard for its players, that’s a choice for San Francisco.
Foster has had other issues besides just this woman. He is just an ahole that doesn’t obey the law.
That’s accusationS with an S, or as a standard you could categorize 3 accusationS within a year as a boatload of trouble
Two of these accusations relate to the same woman who seems to be following him all over the US. Whether she’s psycho girlfriend or not, Foster should stay clear of her. For him she’s nothing but trouble. Some women are like catnip for some men though. Just can’t stay away, no matter how bad she is for you.
Of course if Foster is really bullying women, then he deserves his suspension. Trollhunter is right though – just accusation should not be grounds for suspension. Either the NFL should have suspended Foster for the weapons charge at the time, or not. Applying a suspension now just based on he-said, she-said makes a mockery of due process.
Reunited with his Alabama teammates and away from San Francisco, Foster will probably enjoy a long and successful NFL career so the move will be good for him in the long run, suspension or no suspension.
Personally I think the NFL would be best served to simply stay out of legal matters all together!
If a player gets convicted or pleads guilty of something, then suspend them, but not before.
It’s fake morality for PRs sake, and it’s just a bad strategy all around. For one, no one buys that players are suspended or even cut for moral reasons. Secondly, it only creates more bad PR.
Just look at this case. First the news breaks. Then the team cuts him. Then he’s claimed. Then suspended. Look how many threads have already been on this site alone. So the NFL turns something that would have held peoples attention for an hour or two, has been drug out all week and beyond.
If the league were to simply say that they have faith in our legal system and will show no tolerance for those found guilty under that system.
Totally agree with you, presumption of innocence should be the policy until proven guilty.