Houston and Miami could have Deshaun Watson deal (update - no deal prior to trade deadline)

[Scott7975]

12 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Why would a team trading for him agree not to play him?  

 

 

If I'm the Dolphins and the Commish calls me and says "keep him out of the game or I will put him on MY Exemption List", I'm definitely seeking arbitration ruling here.  As Gunner says, Rog can't make a convincing argument that Watson did not belong on the List in Houston, but he does belong on it in Miami.

 

He can because Watson is already sitting out.

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

He can because Watson is already sitting out.

 

Not because he's exempted.  Texans made that decision. They weren't ordered to.  The Commissioner could have put him on the list, regardless of the Texans' plans for Watson.

 

If his actions have warranted a Commissioner's  exemption, he should be on the List right now.  If his actions  haven't warranted being put on the list, then why would a change of team make him suddenly worthy of exemption?  The exemption list isn't to be used as a threat to team owners.  A player either belongs on it or he doesn't, regardless of his current zip code.

[GunnerBill]

26 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Not because he's exempted.  Texans made that decision. They weren't ordered to.  The Commissioner could have put him on the list, regardless of the Texans' plans for Watson.

 

If his actions have warranted a Commissioner's  exemption, he should be on the List right now.  If his actions  haven't warranted being put on the list, then why would a change of team make him suddenly worthy of exemption?  The exemption list isn't to be used as a threat to team owners.  A player either belongs on it or he doesn't, regardless of his current zip code.

 

I was waiting for you WEO. As I recall the two of us fighting against the tide on deflategate 🤣. Here comes take II.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

I was waiting for you WEO. As I recall the two of us fighting against the tide on deflategate 🤣. Here comes take II.

 

'ello Guv'nah!  I'm putting on my powdered wig..

 

As you are an actual Barrister, I'll take second chair.

 

Forward unto the breach!

 

 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

'ello Guv'nah!  I'm putting on my powdered wig..

 

As you are an actual Barrister, I'll take second chair.

 

Forward unto the breach!

 

 

Ha I am not a barrister. I have a law degree but I have never done pupillage. I am a chief policy advisor to the British Government on civil and administrative law though, when I am not slacking off to watch Bills All22 film.  

[Mr. WEO]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Ha I am not a barrister. I have a law degree but I have never done pupillage. I am a chief policy advisor to the British Government on civil and administrative law though, when I am not slacking off to watch Bills All22 film.  

 

 More than qualified for this crew!

 

 

[Scott7975]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Not because he's exempted.  Texans made that decision. They weren't ordered to.  The Commissioner could have put him on the list, regardless of the Texans' plans for Watson.

 

If his actions have warranted a Commissioner's  exemption, he should be on the List right now.  If his actions  haven't warranted being put on the list, then why would a change of team make him suddenly worthy of exemption?  The exemption list isn't to be used as a threat to team owners.  A player either belongs on it or he doesn't, regardless of his current zip code.

 

I agree that he should be on the list now.  I don't agree that they can't put him on the list in the future.  If they want to put him on the list then they will put him on the list and it will be that simple.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

28 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

I agree that he should be on the list now.  I don't agree that they can't put him on the list in the future.  If they want to put him on the list then they will put him on the list and it will be that simple.

 

That's basically my take on it.  Like I said before, the league's Personal Conduct Policy and the Commissioner's Exempt List are the 2000 pound Grizzly Bear.   My take is they mean what the NFL says they mean, when the NFL says they mean it.  They were deliberately written to be vague and to not be coupled to legal proceedings.

 

It wouldn't even surprise me if there is a trade and the trade partner has the intention to play Watson and the NFL says nothing unless there's then a loud public outcry.  Whereupon the NFL then says "oh, wait, we just evaluated an additional 5 interviews with the accusers and Watson goes on the Exempt List right now, immediately!"

 

And sure the Dolphins and Watson can fight that in court.  Maybe they win, maybe they don't, maybe it grinds on for a couple months and serves as a hella distraction.

[Mr. WEO]

19 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

I agree that he should be on the list now.  I don't agree that they can't put him on the list in the future.  If they want to put him on the list then they will put him on the list and it will be that simple.

 

I am not claiming Watson should be on the list now.  Nor is anyone saying  the Commissioner can't put him on the list whenever he wants to, so yours is not a pertinent argument.

 

The point being discussed is how/why Miami would not successfully challenge that action as arbitrary.  In front of an arbitrator, the Commissioner can't make a cogent argument that in Houston, Watson is not exemptible, but in Miami he is.  His discipline actions are independent of those of any team, so he can't argue "well I didn't suspend him because Houston sat him, but I suspended him in Miami because they wouldn't sit him."  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

 

With respect Hapless, while I am not a US attorney nor an expert on American employment law, civil and administrative law is my day job. While our systems and our law is different a lot of the fundamental principles are similar. You can present my opinion as just one among many if you like but I come at this with a good understanding of what I am talking about. When people want respond and question that I will engage with it. Apologies if that comes across as labouring the point, that was not my intention. 

 

Edit: as for the precedent point the deflategate rulings are instructive. They basically said the NFL can't sit "wherever it wants". It concluded that Goodell has "limited authority" in his role as arbitrator under the CBA. Even the Court of Appeals that actually reinstated the Brady suspension did not disagree on that point. They simply held that Goodell had not acted outside the bounds of that authority in determining the penalty in Brady's case. 

 

Well, I'm not a US attorney nor an expert on American employment law.  I acknowledge that this is far more your lane than mine.  But typically when someone of lesser knowledge on a topic disagrees with someone who has greater, it's worth asking "why?"

 

When I read through something like this about the "deflategate" ruling, that bolded above is not what I take from it:

https://www.greenberglawoffice.com/deflategate/

Quote

First, it is extremely difficult to overturn an arbitration decision. As stated above, courts will, in most instances, defer to the arbitrators’ decisions and uphold the award issued by the arbitrator. “Even when [the arbitration decisions a]re manifestly abusive, swear at the law and are based on rules of evidence that wouldn’t pass muster in a rural traffic court,” courts will still give “incredible deference” to these arbitration awards.[61] Only when an arbitrator has acted with fraud, bias, or corruption or has exceeded the authority given to the arbitrator under the terms of the agreement will a court overturn an arbitration decision. With the Second Circuit’s ruling, the same standard of review continues to apply to league commissioners who act as arbitrators and issue punishments, whether or not the court agrees with the extent of the punishment or not.

Second, Article 46 of the CBA, aptly called the Commissioner Discipline clause,[62] grants to Commissioner Goodell the right to be judge, jury, and executioner.[63] Article 46 allows Commissioner Goodell to divvy out punishments and fines for conduct he personally feels could damage the NFL’s reputation as “conduct detrimental” to the NFL, whether this conduct occurs on the field or off, and regardless of whether there is a written rule putting the players on notice before issuing the punishments. This means that Commissioner Goodell basically has the power to make up rules on the fly and issue punishments whenever he wants. “If the commissioner wants to make up the rules as he goes along, change the grounds for punishment months after issuing discipline, and manipulate the system so that despite no legal training he can serve as an arbitrator to preside over a grievance over one of his own rulings[–]The commissioner can do that.”[64] There is no player conduct rule in the current CBA that specifically puts a player, like Brady, on notice that the player may be punished for the actions of team equipment personnel. But, regardless of this fact, Commissioner Goodell has the power under Article 46 to punish players and teams for such actions that he deems “conduct detrimental,” which encompasses the actions of other individuals.[65] And the Second Circuit, in affirming Brady’s suspension and Commissioner Goodells’ punishment, gave Commissioner Goodell “in writing . . . the ability to punish anyone, for any reason, even with limited or downright false evidence, whenever he so desires.”[66]

 

So I don't think the Deflategate ruling is generally held by American law to have limited the NFL's authority to decide what and when conduct is "detrimental" to the NFL.

 

This may also be of interest:

https://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/201523/arbitrator-confirms-nfls-enormous-disciplinary-power-with-slight-check

 

The new CBA may have limited Goodell in that there now has to be a panel of arbitrators (I think - I can't find too much about this) and if he rules, he can no longer arbitrate the appeal of his own ruling.  But none of that would prevent him from deciding that conduct is "detrimental" to the Shield, or limit him to "new legal evidence" or anything of the sort.

 

[GunnerBill]

26 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Well, I'm not a US attorney nor an expert on American employment law.  I acknowledge that this is far more your lane than mine.  But typically when someone of lesser knowledge on a topic disagrees with someone who has greater, it's worth asking "why?"

 

When I read through something like this about the "deflategate" ruling, that bolded above is not what I take from it:

https://www.greenberglawoffice.com/deflategate/

 

So unless the new CBA has put a limit on Goodell's authority, I don't think the Deflategate ruling is generally held by American law to have done so.

 

The key words are in your first bullet "or has exceeded the authority given to the arbitrator." That is the critical point because even the Court of Appeals that reinstated the Brady suspension accepted that the Commissioner has... and these words come directly from the judgment "a limited authority." 

 

To my mind when you apply that to the circumstances in Watson's case you get to exactly the question WEO and I have posed. "Why is he exemptable now when he wasn't in Houston?" The response cannot be "because he was being quasi disciplined by Houston" because the Commissioner's powers operate entirely independently of any team sanctioned discipline for something that falls under the Personal Conduct Policy. 

 

Goodell could have chosen to put Watson on the exempt list the night the first story broke. With no investigation. That is the power he has - and to which your third bolded alludes. However, when he takes one view for 2 months and then changes it without material change of evidence I would strongly argue that falls outside of his authority. He doesn't get to change his mind for presentational convenience. Could a lawyer argue differently? Of course. That is the nature of the civil law. It isn't absolute. But if I was advising on the risk of successful legal challenge to Goodell reversing course and putting Watson on the exempt list purely because he has been traded to a team who might play him I would advise it is medium-high which by the standard legal risk management matrix I commonly use in my job means 50-70% risk of successful challenge. 

 

And of course as I have said multiple times - there could be no challenge brought. That happens. I have advised a medium-high risk of successful challenge on things where an action has been taken anyway and no challenge is ever brought. The sensitivity of this situation certainly means that Watson and/or a trading team would tread carefully around being seen to be litigious on what is essentially an administrative point. 

 

I still go back though to where I started - the way the league best avoided this was to put him on the exempt list the moment the season started. 

 

EDIT: of course timing is on the NFL's side here where it wasn't on deflategate. That happened in an offseason so Brady missed no time while the legal action played out. Here if the NFL put Watson on the list he (unless he can get a court to rule it is prima facie unlawful and issue an exceptional injunction) misses time while any legal process plays out.

Edited October 23, 2021 by GunnerBill

[Hapless Bills Fan]

43 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

The point being discussed is how/why Miami would not successfully challenge that action as arbitrary.  In front of an arbitrator, the Commissioner can't make a cogent argument that in Houston, Watson is not exemptible, but in Miami he is.  His discipline actions are independent of those of any team, so he can't argue "well I didn't suspend him because Houston sat him, but I suspended him in Miami because they wouldn't sit him."  

 

I doubt he would make that argument.  As I've said elsewhere, the NFL is conducting its own investigation on its own timeline.  All it has to do is assert that its investigation either uncovered new pertinent information that led to it taking action, coincidentally just after Watson was traded - or that it completed its initial phase and the results indicate taking that action (coincidentally just after he was traded).

 

I think Watson and the Dolphins would have to appeal to a court of law, the arbitration is essentially what the CBA agreed to with regard to the NFL's chosen panel/Goodell acting. 

 

But that's just my opinion.

 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I doubt he would make that argument.  As I've said elsewhere, the NFL is conducting its own investigation on its own timeline.  All it has to do is assert that its investigation either uncovered new pertinent information that led to it taking action, coincidentally just after Watson was traded - or that it completed its initial phase and the results indicate taking that action. 

 

I think they would have to appeal to a court of law, the arbitration is essentially what the CBA agreed to with regard to the NFL arbitrating.  But that's just my opinion.

 

 

Oh Watson / a trading team would have to get through the NFL appeals and into a court of law. They wouldn't win through the appeals process built into the CBA.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

To my mind when you apply that to the circumstances in Watson's case you get to exactly the question WEO and I have posed. "Why is he exemptable now when he wasn't in Houston?" The response cannot be "because he was being quasi disciplined by Houston" because the Commissioner's powers operate entirely independently of any team sanctioned discipline for something that falls under the Personal Conduct Policy. 

 

Goodell could have chosen to put Watson on the exempt list the night the first story broke. With no investigation. That is the power he has - and to which your third bolded alludes. However, when he takes one view for 2 months and then changes it without material change of evidence I would strongly argue that falls outside of his authority.

 

See above.  I agree with you that he can't say "he wasn't exemptable in Houston but he is now, Just Because".  But he doesn't have to.  He isn't limited by "material change of evidence" stemming from the legal investigation.    The NFL can roll its own, that's my point.

 

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

But if I was advising on the risk of successful legal challenge to Goodell reversing course and putting Watson on the exempt list purely because he has been traded to a team who might play him I would advise it is medium-high which by the standard legal risk management matrix I commonly use in my job means 50-70% risk of successful challenge. 

 

Purely because he's been traded, sure, I can see your point there.  But again - Goodell is not limited to material change of evidence from the legal proceding.  He can come up with some new evidence, just like the NFL did in the Josh Brown and Ray Rice cases - AFTER there was a public outcry.  "I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you by this new evidence which we strangely were totally unable to obtain and peruse previously"

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I doubt he would make that argument.  As I've said elsewhere, the NFL is conducting its own investigation on its own timeline.  All it has to do is assert that its investigation either uncovered new pertinent information that led to it taking action, coincidentally just after Watson was traded - or that it completed its initial phase and the results indicate taking that action (coincidentally just after he was traded).

 

I think Watson and the Dolphins would have to appeal to a court of law, the arbitration is essentially what the CBA agreed to with regard to the NFL's chosen panel/Goodell acting. 

 

But that's just my opinion.

 

I’m suggesting not that Watson/NFLPA would be challenging the listing, but that the Dolphins would be challenging they’re prohibition from playing the player.  Their appeal would be outside the CBA.  They wouldn’t be challenging Goodell’s collectively bargained (with the players/NFLPA) power to exempt.  They would be challenging a bogus listing….and some new secret info that only spurred Goddell into action AFTER a trade would prove to be fertile grounds for arbitration.  Plus any such “new” evidence would have to be revealed 

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

See above.  I agree with you that he can't say "he wasn't exemptable in Houston but he is now, Just Because".  But he doesn't have to.  He isn't limited by "material change of evidence" stemming from the legal investigation.    The NFL can roll its own, that's my point.

 

 

Purely because he's been traded, sure, I can see your point there.  But again - Goodell is not limited to material change of evidence from the legal proceding.  He can come up with some new evidence, just like the NFL did in the Josh Brown and Ray Rice cases - AFTER there was a public outcry.  "I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you by this new evidence which we strangely were totally unable to obtain and peruse previously"

 

 

 

The difference on Rice was that the video did, at that point, leak. If there was a similar smoking gun on Watson the NFL would be home and dry. I know there were different accounts of how aware the NFL was of the video beforehand. But at least publicly they could say "ah we only just saw this."

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The difference on Rice was that the video did, at that point, leak. If there was a similar smoking gun on Watson the NFL would be home and dry. I know there were different accounts of how aware the NFL was of the video beforehand. But at least publicly they could say "ah we only just saw this."

agreed.

 

If Goddell is asked “why didn’t Watsons behavior rise to be adequate for you to exempt him?” He can’t answer “the Texans told me they wouldn’t play him”. 
 

Likewise, if asked “so why did you exempt him once he got to Miami?”, he can’t say “the Dolphins told me they wouldn’t bench him”.

 

as for claiming “we have new evidence” Goddell would have to prove it only came to his attention after the trade

[ColoradoBills]

For the record.  Just read the rules of the "exempt" list.  A certain QB is not yet on the list but could be at any given time.

 

Here’s the official definition via the NFL Player Personnel Policy Manual:

 

The Exempt List is a special player status available to clubs only in unusual circumstances. The List includes those players who have been declared by the Commissioner to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Only the Commissioner has the authority to place a player on the Exempt List; clubs have no such authority, and no exemption, regardless of circumstances, is automatic. The Commissioner also has the authority to determine in advance whether a player’s time on the Exempt List will be finite or will continue until the Commissioner deems the exemption should be lifted and the player returned to the Active List.

 

It seems to me that this is a NFL/NFLPA agreement.  It's up to the commissioner to determine player status.  It would have to go through

the court system to determine whether a "commissioner" can put a player on the list.

 

It seems to me no matter what fans/media say about all of this ultimately it comes down to Roger Goodell to decide  Watson NFL fate.

[CincyBillsFan]

9 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

As I have been trying to explain though the league are potentially in difficult territory doing that if nothing has changed in his legal case. The league doesn't have cart blanche to do what it wants discipline wise. It has to apply its own policy fairly and rationally. Either what is known is bad enough that he goes on the list or it isn't. Once you start throwing factors like "well was he likely to play or not" in then you are getting subjective and rationality becomes trickier. 

I heard it explained on the Sirius NFL channel in the following way- "as long as Watson is getting paid the legal situation favors any decision by the NFL to keep him off the field based on personal conduct."

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

I heard it explained on the Sirius NFL channel in the following way- "as long as Watson is getting paid the legal situation favors any decision by the NFL to keep him off the field based on personal conduct."

 

 

 

 

That is true while he doesn't want to play (he doesn't in Houston) and while his team doesn't want him to play. Once on of those changes the situation changes.

[CincyBillsFan]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That is true while he doesn't want to play (he doesn't in Houston) and while his team doesn't want him to play. Once on of those changes the situation changes.

Does it?  The NFL owes a player able to and/or willing to play a paycheck.  It would be a lot harder IMO to argue that they owe them playing time while they work through personal conduct issues.  This is like when a police officer is placed on paid leave.

 

Right now letting Watson play would be very damaging to the NFL if it turns out that criminal charges are brought.  On the other hand if Watson did nothing wrong it would be damaging to withhold his paycheck while he's being investigated.  The way it was described on Sirius NFL seemed very reasonable to me.

 

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

Does it?  The NFL owes a player able to and/or willing to play a paycheck.  It would be a lot harder IMO to argue that they owe them playing time while they work through personal conduct issues.  This is like when a police officer is placed on paid leave.

 

Right now letting Watson play would be very damaging to the NFL if it turns out that criminal charges are brought.  On the other hand if Watson did nothing wrong it would be damaging to withhold his paycheck while he's being investigated.  The way it was described on Sirius NFL seemed very reasonable to me.

 

But if Watson or his team wants him to play then what does the NFL do? It has to put him on the exempt list. And we end up back at the question that plagues this thread. How do they justify that now when they haven't justified it before? 

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

Does it?  The NFL owes a player able to and/or willing to play a paycheck.  It would be a lot harder IMO to argue that they owe them playing time while they work through personal conduct issues.  This is like when a police officer is placed on paid leave.

 

Right now letting Watson play would be very damaging to the NFL if it turns out that criminal charges are brought.  On the other hand if Watson did nothing wrong it would be damaging to withhold his paycheck while he's being investigated.  The way it was described on Sirius NFL seemed very reasonable to me.

 

 

 

 

 

Why would he not get paid?

 

[CincyBillsFan]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Why would he not get paid?

 

If he did what the women say he did should he get paid?

 

 

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But if Watson or his team wants him to play then what does the NFL do? It has to put him on the exempt list. And we end up back at the question that plagues this thread. How do they justify that now when they haven't justified it before? 

The NFL has to protect their reputation and not allow Watson to play until he is cleared.  As long as they pay him there's no damage to Watson.  But if he plays and it turns out he did what the women claim he did the NFL is seriously damaged.  This is a league that has invested enormously into attracting women to the game. 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

8 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

If he did what the women say he did should he get paid?

 

 

 

He would be in jail.  Texas doesn't pay prisoners for their work

 

But you said it would be wrong to withhold his paycheck while being investigated , but nobody has said anything about withholding his pay.  He's getting paid.

Edited October 23, 2021 by Mr. WEO

[FLFan]

15 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But if Watson or his team wants him to play then what does the NFL do? It has to put him on the exempt list. And we end up back at the question that plagues this thread. How do they justify that now when they haven't justified it before? 

Houston took it out of the league’s hands by declaring that Watson would remain on the active roster but would not play.  Once that situation changes, the league will be forced to declare a position. Their justification, though none is really needed, is that Houston’s action made NFL intervention moot.   I do not see the dilemma here.  If he is traded and the receiving team plans to play him, he will very likely end up on the exempt list.  The Commissioner has absolute authority on that.  

[Doc]

LOL!  No, Rog can absolutely demand that a trading team keep Watson inactive or threaten to put him on the exempt list until his legal issues are resolved.  There's also the PCP he can invoke.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Doc

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Didn't see this up-thread.  Mike Florio talks about a potential trade for Watson by the Dolphins and lays it out

 

(for those who don't know, Florio has a law degree from WVU, entered the bar, and practiced as a litigator for almost a decade before making a career change to sportswriting)

 

https://dolphinstalk.com/2021/10/21/mike-florio-talks-about-dolphins-possibly-trading-for-watson-this-week/

1:25 in:

Myles Simmons: "If Watson does get traded, does this mean you think he's going to be able to play this year?  You don't think that the Commisioner would step in and say we're going to put you on the exempt list?"

Mike Florio: "We Don't know."

"We reported back in September that the NFL has not decided what to do about DeShaun Watson because it doesn't need to make a decision because the Texans are already putting him on paid leave.  So the NFL would have to move forward.... here's the reality.  Personal conduct policy, paid leave, ...All these things are a PR tool for the NFL.  So the NFL will ultimately do whatever it thinks it needs to do to advance its PR interests.  And this WFT stuff, and all the criticism the league is taking for that...you could say "they don't want any more heat in the Hot Kitchen, they're not going to let DeShaun Watson on the field.  The other side, oh, we'd much rather be criticized for letting DeShaun Watson play, maybe they'll leave us alone on the WFT Investigation.  I don't know which way it goes.  But it's all a High Level PR Game for the NFL.  It's not about Legalities, It's not about Right and Wrong, it's about PR.  How much grief will we take, how aggressive will it be, how deserved will it be from the media and from the fans, if we let this guy play with 22 civil lawsuits pending alleging sexual assault and sexual misconduct during massage therapy sessions and 10 criminal complains that have yet to be resolved.  Look, if I'm the Dolphins, I'm assuming there's a pretty damned good chance the commissioner's going to say that he can't play." (he goes on to talk about whether that would still help the Dolphins)

 

So there you have it.  At least one US trained and formerly practicing lawyer lays it out there pretty bluntly - it's about PR, it's not about legalities (YIKES!)  But he doesn't seem to have any concerns that legalities would PREVENT the NFL from utilizing the Commissioner's Exempt List for any reason at this point.

[Mr. WEO]

Why does everyone keep posting “of course Goodell can put Watson on exempt list” when no one is saying he can’t?  

[Virgil]

End of the week is here and another BS rumor 

[GunnerBill]

8 hours ago, CincyBillsFan said:

 

The NFL has to protect their reputation and not allow Watson to play until he is cleared.  As long as they pay him there's no damage to Watson.  But if he plays and it turns out he did what the women claim he did the NFL is seriously damaged.  This is a league that has invested enormously into attracting women to the game. 

 

 

 

I don't disagree with that but I come back again to the legal position not necessarily being that straightforward.

7 hours ago, FLFan said:

Houston took it out of the league’s hands by declaring that Watson would remain on the active roster but would not play.  Once that situation changes, the league will be forced to declare a position. Their justification, though none is really needed, is that Houston’s action made NFL intervention moot.   I do not see the dilemma here.  If he is traded and the receiving team plans to play him, he will very likely end up on the exempt list.  The Commissioner has absolute authority on that.  

 

I am afraid that is not correct. A team cannot apply discipline in lieu of the NFL on a matter related to the personal conduct policy. That is beyond question. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Why does everyone keep posting “of course Goodell can put Watson on exempt list” when no one is saying he can’t?  

that appears to be @GunnerBill’s position- that legally it would be tenuous to do so

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

that appears to be @GunnerBill’s position- that legally it would be tenuous to do so

 

Yep. He can do it. But I think it Watson / a trading team issued a legal challenge I think he would struggle to justify his change of approach unless there is new information pursuant to the actual allegations. 

 

I do think the more we have discussed this the legal advice Goodell is getting might be "it is legally questionable but even if they challenge by the time Watson got to a court to challenge it this season would be over and the embarrassment of him playing before the civil trial takes place is avoided." 

 

Again without going into details I am advising on something very similar right now. Where we ultimately expect we will lose but it suits our purposes to push the point at which we lose some distance into the future at the end of a legal process. 

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

that appears to be @GunnerBill’s position- that legally it would be tenuous to do so

 

I've been saying as much as well.  Goodell can't logically defend prohibiting the next team from playing Watson.  He can put him on the list but Im not sure how that would be affirmed in arbitration.

 

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yep. He can do it. But I think it Watson / a trading team issued a legal challenge I think he would struggle to justify his change of approach unless there is new information pursuant to the actual allegations. 

 

I do think the more we have discussed this the legal advice Goodell is getting might be "it is legally questionable but even if they challenge by the time Watson got to a court to challenge it this season would be over and the embarrassment of him playing before the civil trial takes place is avoided." 

 

Again without going into details I am advising on something very similar right now. Where we ultimately expect we will lose but it suits our purposes to push the point at which we lose some distance into the future at the end of a legal process. 

 

indeed

[Hapless Bills Fan]

22 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

I've been saying as much as well.  Goodell can't logically defend prohibiting the next team from playing Watson.  He can put him on the list but Im not sure how that would be affirmed in arbitration.

 

On the arbitration issue, even Gunnerbill agrees that arbitration/the NFL process to appeal it would not change a thing:

 

I think it's time to explain exactly why you think Goodell can't logically defend prohibiting the next team from playing Watson.

I've explained exactly how I think that would work, several times now, and you and Gunner are not addressing this.

 

[Scott7975]

You guys know my stance on Watson being put on the list.  Lets say for arguments sake you are right @GunnerBill... What exactly do you think a trial would look like for Watson?  Might he not be questioned about the accusations?  It might not work in Watsons favor to try and push a trial with all his other legal issues going on.

 

[Doc]

52 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

I've been saying as much as well.  Goodell can't logically defend prohibiting the next team from playing Watson.  He can put him on the list but Im not sure how that would be affirmed in arbitration.

 

Do you (and GB) think Watson should be on the exempt list now?

[GunnerBill]

32 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

You guys know my stance on Watson being put on the list.  Lets say for arguments sake you are right @GunnerBill... What exactly do you think a trial would look like for Watson?  Might he not be questioned about the accusations?  It might not work in Watsons favor to try and push a trial with all his other legal issues going on.

 

 

If an appeal against an NFL arbitration decision ended up in the courts the court only has jurisdiction to hear that appeal. They would only be allowed to hear evidence relevant to the question of whether the Commissioner was acting within his powers. Now in the case where the NFL's defense is as Hapless argues it could be "well we have new information" then the court could interrogate the league about that evidence, but it could not question Watson about the allegations themselves. That would be outside of their jurisdiction. 

44 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think it's time to explain exactly why you think Goodell can't logically defend prohibiting the next team from playing Watson.

I've explained exactly how I think that would work, several times now, and you and Gunner are not addressing this.

 

 

He could try that. Maybe it works. Ultimately that would be for the court to decide. Remember it is established the Commissioner cannot act in bad faith. So in the long run he would still end up having to demonstrate that he did indeed have new information.

[Mr. WEO]

18 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

On the arbitration issue, even Gunnerbill agrees that arbitration/the NFL process to appeal it would not change a thing:

 

I think it's time to explain exactly why you think Goodell can't logically defend prohibiting the next team from playing Watson.

I've explained exactly how I think that would work, several times now, and you and Gunner are not addressing this.

 

 

I have done so multiple times.

 

If his behavior is such that he would deserve to be on the list, why isn't he?  As Gunner pointed out, the team's choice of handling a player's discipline has no bearing on the Commissioners actions to discipline a player.

 

An example is Antonio Brown.  Despite being investigated for assault, he was not initially placed on the exemption list -- because he was not on a team (released by Patriots).  It was understood that if a team signed him, he would likely be placed on the list.

 

Watson has been under investigation for multiple assaults for 8 months, yet the Commissioner has not put him on the exempt list.  His choice to exempt or not is  based on the situation of player/investigation/charges---not whether the team is doing some other discipline.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Do you (and GB) think Watson should be on the exempt list now?

 

 

Of course.  He is under investigation for multiple assault charges.  This is who gets exempted.

[Doc]

30 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Of course.  He is under investigation for multiple assault charges.  This is who gets exempted.

 

OK. I think most everybody can agree with this. So why do you think he’s not?