1218 replies to this topic

[Slidemaster]

Honestly, the travesty here is that people like this are still allowed to play at all. In any other career, someone doing this would be fired, immediately, if it came to light. The fact that he might not get more than 6 games and then go on to make his 230+ million dollars makes me sick.

I'm all for getting rid of the trash humans in professional sports. To be clear, I'm not talking about guys who are jerks - there's plenty of them. I mean people who hurt or assault others and break the law while doing it. Get them out and keep them out.

[cprenegade]

A wrong decision to hand out a lenient penalty from 10+ years ago before there was an official policy shouldn't be what the league has to be beholden to.  Not sure how strictly a court would force the NFL to lean on precedent that may not have any relevance anymore.  Maybe a lot, but I'd be disappointed, as I think we've all moved towards taking these sorts of things more seriously rather than sweeping under the rug.  

 

I'm not lawyer, but I also don't think the PA has much of a court case since they've already agreed that the league can hand out suspension it deems fit.  If they wanted to fight this, when the CBA was reworked was the time.  Its settled already and the league is working within that agreement.  Is on the NFLPA that they agreed to this system.

 

Yes, it is on the NFLPA that they agreed to an awful system.  If both sides agree to an independent judge handing out discipline, then agree that an appeal will be handled the same way.  A system that says the NFL will agree to an independent arbitrator assessing the penalty, but if we want to appeal it, well we are going to be the one's to which it is appealed is absolutely a farce.  

 

Was the penalty lenient 10 years ago?  Was the penalty lenient this time?  I know what the speculation is, and I probably agree with it in both cases.  I believe both are guilty of what is accused.  But the constitution on which this country was built on states that a man is innocent until proven guilty.  I can judge Watson guilty only on what I read on the internet and hear in the media.  But there were no convictions, and no charges.  

 

Many people still call Ray Lewis a murderer.  That is speculation the same way it is with Watson.  They say it is a travesty that Lewis was retained by the Ravens, went on to be a SB MVP, now has a statue outside of M&T Bank stadium, and is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  I bet I could find a lot of dissent from the friends and family of the two deceased victims from that night.  But Ray Lewis was never convicted of murder, only of obstruction of justice.  It was before the NFL conduct policy, so he was never suspended for even one game.  Should the NFL go back and strip him of the SB MVP and remove him from the HOF?   If you're going to say that conduct policy does not require any legal convictions, then maybe you have to revisit some of the things that numerous people did before the policy was in place.   

[Mackus]

But the constitution on which this country was built on states that a man is innocent until proven guilty. I can judge Watson guilty only on what I read on the internet and hear in the media. But there were no convictions, and no charges.

You are welcome to judge Watson guilty, as is the NFL, and that has nothing to do with the constitution. He's gotta be proven guilty in court to go to prison. That's not required to be suspended.

[makoman]

You are welcome to judge Watson guilty, as is the NFL, and that has nothing to do with the constitution. He's gotta be proven guilty in court to go to prison. That's not required to be suspended.

Yeah, there is nothing illegal about putting sticky stuff on your hands while pitching. Is suspending people for that a violation of the Constitution? How about suspending people for using stuff that I can go buy at GNC?

[makoman]

I agree that the NFL being able to appeal to Goodell is mostly a farce. But "it is on the NFLPA that they agreed to that awful system" is where the argument ends. This is not some new surprise thing. This was in the last CBA, the NFLPA complained immensely about it IIRC, yet they agreed to it again (with some modification). I'm quite certain the NFL would have given this up in exchange for something, I.e. money, but it wasn't important enough to the NFLPA to give up that money, so here we are.

[russsnyder]

I agree that the NFL being able to appeal to Goodell is mostly a farce. But "it is on the NFLPA that they agreed to that awful system" is where the argument ends. This is not some new surprise thing. This was in the last CBA, the NFLPA complained immensely about it IIRC, yet they agreed to it again (with some modification). I'm quite certain the NFL would have given this up in exchange for something, I.e. money, but it wasn't important enough to the NFLPA to give up that money, so here we are.

The fact that the NFL is appealing a suspension that fits under the definition of the CBA is farcical. At the end of the day, Goodell loves the good press that he'll get by appealing the ruling. Also, he loves being the judge, jury, and executioner in these cases.

I think Watson has a pretty strong case if he files a lawsuit against the NFL. (If he is suspended more than six games.) I think it's a good move by Watson to strike first in case Goodell tries to suspend him for a full season. Watson may risk a much larger chunk of his contract if he tries to play this season while the courts sift through this, however, he can always drop the suit while making his point.

I disagree that the NFLPA could have taken away King Roger's power in cases like these in exchange for less profit sharing. Goodell likes the power he has over the players in situations like this. It also gives him a righteous grandstand to show everyone how much he cares about those who accused Watson. All the while he's keeping the ladies in the seats and buying NFL gear to boot. He's a helluva guy.

[Mackus]

Goodell likes the power he has over the players in situations like this. It also gives him a righteous grandstand to show everyone how much he cares about those who accused Watson. All the while he's keeping the ladies in the seats and buying NFL gear to boot. He's a helluva guy.

 

I've read this multiple times.  It sounds like you're (via sarcasm) criticizing him for taking actions...against sexual assault?  That can't be what you mean, right?

[makoman]

The fact that the NFL is appealing a suspension that fits under the definition of the CBA is farcical. At the end of the day, Goodell loves the good press that he'll get by appealing the ruling. Also, he loves being the judge, jury, and executioner in these cases.

I think Watson has a pretty strong case if he files a lawsuit against the NFL. (If he is suspended more than six games.) I think it's a good move by Watson to strike first in case Goodell tries to suspend him for a full season. Watson may risk a much larger chunk of his contract if he tries to play this season while the courts sift through this, however, he can always drop the suit while making his point.

I disagree that the NFLPA could have taken away King Roger's power in cases like these in exchange for less profit sharing. Goodell likes the power he has over the players in situations like this. It also gives him a righteous grandstand to show everyone how much he cares about those who accused Watson. All the while he's keeping the ladies in the seats and buying NFL gear to boot. He's a helluva guy.

I don't disagree that Goodell loves all the things you say he loves, but I would wager that the owners love money more, and he serves at their pleasure. I still think if the players wanted to buy out this system they could have. 

 

I disagree that Watson has a strong case for the reason I've said before, courts generally don't want to get involved in things that were collectively bargained. But I guess we'll see.

[makoman]

I've read this multiple times.  It sounds like you're (via sarcasm) criticizing him for taking actions...against sexual assault?  That can't be what you mean, right?

To read it favorably to russ, I suppose he's saying that Goodell probably doesn't care much, but this gives him a chance to act like he does to appease the fans who are unhappy with the 6 game decision.

[russsnyder]

I've read this multiple times. It sounds like you're (via sarcasm) criticizing him for taking actions...against sexual assault? That can't be what you mean, right?

I am criticizing him for appealing the six game suspension. The independent counsel made the correct ruling in this case. Watson should be punished for his actions and it's Goodell's job to enforce the policies that are in the CBA. I would be behind Goodell pushing for a longer suspension if Watson had been indicted by a grand jury or was facing criminal prosecution for the allegations against him. However, that's not the case. He is being punished by the league under their definition of sexual assault.I believe that Goodell is using the appeal to move the goalposts. It reminds me of the Ray Rice case. At some point it has to end. Goodell loves him some spotlight.

[russsnyder]

To read it favorably to russ, I suppose he's saying that Goodell probably doesn't care much, but this gives him a chance to act like he does to appease the fans who are unhappy with the 6 game decision.

Pretty much.

[Mackus]

I am criticizing him for appealing the six game suspension. The independent counsel made the correct ruling in this case. Watson should be punished for his actions and it's Goodell's job to enforce the policies that are in the CBA. I would be behind Goodell pushing for a longer suspension if Watson had been indicted by a grand jury or was facing criminal prosecution for the allegations against him. However, that's not the case. He is being punished by the league under their definition of sexual assault.I believe that Goodell is using the appeal to move the goalposts. It reminds me of the Ray Rice case. At some point it has to end. Goodell loves him some spotlight.

 

Appealing is pretty much perfunctory for the losing side in these things.  If the arbitrator handed down a 1-year suspension, Watson would certainly be appealing.

 

I disagree that the right decision was reached.  I think Watson committed these offenses he was accused of (as did the arbitrator, oddly enough) and that the right penalty is much stiffer than the 6-game base guideline in the league policy.  This is multiple acts against different people, so I wouldn't have treated it as one offense.

[russsnyder]

Appealing is pretty much perfunctory for the losing side in these things. If the arbitrator handed down a 1-year suspension, Watson would certainly be appealing.

I disagree that the right decision was reached. I think Watson committed these offenses he was accused of (as did the arbitrator, oddly enough) and that the right penalty is much stiffer than the 6-game base guideline in the league policy. This is multiple acts against different people, so I wouldn't have treated it as one offense.

How did the NFL lose?

Six games is the penalty for the offense.

Goodell wants Watson to serve a year, so there's going to a fight.

Like it or not, counsel heard four cases, so that's what it was based on. The case against Watson got much weaker once the criminal court decided not to indict him.

[makoman]

Appealing is pretty much perfunctory for the losing side in these things.  If the arbitrator handed down a 1-year suspension, Watson would certainly be appealing.

 

I disagree that the right decision was reached.  I think Watson committed these offenses he was accused of (as did the arbitrator, oddly enough) and that the right penalty is much stiffer than the 6-game base guideline in the league policy.  This is multiple acts against different people, so I wouldn't have treated it as one offense.

My impression was that Robinson threw the book at him, but felt constrained by the "precedent" to limit it to 6 games. IMO it is not unreasonable for the league to appeal on this basis, and argue that no such precedent applies for X, Y, Z reason. 

[Mackus]

How did the NFL lose?

Six games is the penalty for the offense.

Goodell wants Watson to serve a year, so there's going to a fight.

Like it or not, counsel heard four cases, so that's what it was based on. The case against Watson got much weaker once the criminal court decided not to indict him.

 

NFL asked for a longer suspension.  Waston asked for shorter (or no) suspension.  Arbitrator ruled somewhere in the middle, as they are allowed to do (unlike MLB salary arb cases, as an example).  Watson accepted it since he thinks its a good result for him.  NFLdid not accept and are appealing, since they don't think its a good result.

 

Why shouldn't the NFL appeal if they think the decision was reached wrongly?  Same question also goes for Watson, if it was a big suspension I'd fully expect him to appeal.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Also enough of the “well he wasn’t indicted” talk. The NFL has a much lower threshold for suspending someone for a long time than the govt does when putting someone in prison.

And yes, I do understand what goes on re: grand jury hearings v an actual criminal trial

[You Play to Win the Game]

Didn’t he basically pay all of them off?

[Pedro Cerrano]

Didn’t he basically pay all of them off?

Yup. Take this $ and go away.

[russsnyder]

Also enough of the “well he wasn’t indicted” talk. The NFL has a much lower threshold for suspending someone for a long time than the govt does when putting someone in prison.

And yes, I do understand what goes on re: grand jury hearings v an actual criminal trial

Lol.

Complain to the administrator and get me banned. Short of that, place me on ignore.

Lol

[Pedro Cerrano]

Lol.

Complain to the administrator and get me banned. Short of that, place me on ignore.

Lol

Oh you’d like that wouldn’t you? Well I ain’t gonna give ya the satisfaction!