Judge Sue Robinson recommends 6 game suspension for Watson; NFL will appeal

[YoloinOhio]

 

[BarleyNY]

1 hour ago, Chandler#81 said:

🤦‍♂️

Also the same league that gave Ray Lewis a $250k fine and 0 games suspended for his involvement in a double murder.  They are not exactly a model of consistency. 

[Warcodered]

 

 

[CoudyBills]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, you've mulled over Watson like actions for years and are quite disgusted by them, but are not inclined to take any action such as a boycott because of your addiction to football?  Your moral authority seems to not have any basis in reality but is willing to succumb to your desire to see men beating on other men. I don't have any problem cheering on men beating on other men either but it seems that you feel obligated to sorta object to woman beating on men, even if they've been paid to do so. 

 

The judge says she mitigated the recommendation due to the fact that Watson did not use violence or the threat of violence to obtain a happy ending. It would appear to me that she is on the one hand saying that whatever went on in the massage rooms was between consenting adults but what went on in the massage rooms was also wrong, not because 20 some women were forced into sex acts but because they complained about having consented to those acts. Your response is to lambast those activities but throw your disgust aside because you are addicted to football. Now that's some moral clarity. 

Do you feel better now, bishop?

[BarleyNY]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Personally I would, because that really does undermine the process that Goodell has been trumpeting in its first case. This new disciplinary process is his baby. He has been extolling its virtues and getting his client journalists (hello Mike Florio) to do the same. The NFL argued to the independent disciplinary officer for a year's suspension. Judge Robinson applied a 6 game suspension. For Goodell on appeal to overturn that and then to give what the NFL asked for originally and she rejected totally undermines his new process. I don't think he is going to do that. 

 

I still think the NFL will appeal. I do think Goodell will extend the suspension but I see doubling it to 12 games as the ceiling. If he imposes a season he renders the new independent element of the process a sham which a) hurts his own credibility and b) puts him back in the position he was trying to get out of with the new process where he is the judge, jury and executioner which has been criticised by the courts in some of the recent high profile litigation in which the NFL has found itself. 

I’ve been thinking about this. The NFL dramatically changing the neutral arbiter’s ruling would undermine the overall agreement between the NFL and PA - as well as lead to a lot of other problems.  But what about the NFL appealing and keeping the suspension at 6 games per Robinson’s ruling, but also tacking on a huge fine?  They could use his contract structure as the rationale for that, saying that it will bring his lost income more into line with his missed games. 

[cle23]

18 hours ago, CincyBillsFan said:

I suspect that Roger will quote the judges language heavily focusing on the "egregious" nature of the acts and then cite the NFL's commitment to bringing women into the fold and state that Watson's actions has damaged the leagues reputation and efforts to meet their key business goal of attracting female fans. He'll then raise the suspension to 12 games with a hefty fine.

 

The NFLPA would have to think long and hard about the optics of challenging that kind of ruling.

 

 

 

 

From what I have read, Goodell does not have the power to just raise it to whatever he wants.  He has to be able to justify it based on her statements and the evidence listed.  Some believe that is why Robinson went into such great detail in regards to some of the issues.  Goodell has to be able to back up his changes with precedent and with reasonable cause given the violations that Robinson did find.

[GunnerBill]

12 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

From what I have read, Goodell does not have the power to just raise it to whatever he wants.  He has to be able to justify it based on her statements and the evidence listed.  Some believe that is why Robinson went into such great detail in regards to some of the issues.  Goodell has to be able to back up his changes with precedent and with reasonable cause given the violations that Robinson did find.

 

He doesn't unless the PA takes it to court. Goodell can make it anything he wants but if it gets challenged in court the standard is that he can't act irrationally. If he does, and the PA can demonstrate that in court, then his potential overrule of Robinson could be invalidated. But irrationality is a high bar. The PA wouldn't have to only prove that Goodell should have reached a different conclusion but that no rational person could have overrurled in the way he did based on the evidence. 

[Warcodered]

 

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

 

If people only read one thread on this issue, read this one. Excellent breakdown.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Honestly this is the worst outcome. I was hoping the arbitrator would look at the evidence and say she didn’t see any evidence of sexual misconduct. Instead she believes it happened but in a non violent way.

 

I don’t care about the suspension, how did he avoid indictment. 

[Gugny]

13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If people only read one thread on this issue, read this one. Excellent breakdown.

 

Thanks, GB.  Good stuff.  And this is what's most disturbing to me ...

 

There is no precedent, here.  No one has ever been sued for the despicable acts that Watson has.  Going by prior NFL punishments was not only asinine, but a missed opportunity to make a bold statement.  Major fail.

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Thanks, GB.  Good stuff.  And this is what's most disturbing to me ...

 

There is no precedent, here.  No one has ever been sued for the despicable acts that Watson has.  Going by prior NFL punishments was not only asinine, but a missed opportunity to make a bold statement.  Major fail.

 

Why would she set precedent so low for something that has never happened before? It makes no sense. 

[Gugny]

28 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Why would she set precedent so low for something that has never happened before? It makes no sense. 

 

That's what I was trying to say.  She had the opportunity to set precedent, but instead referred to past punishments which had little-to-no relevance.

 

[GunnerBill]

42 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Thanks, GB.  Good stuff.  And this is what's most disturbing to me ...

 

There is no precedent, here.  No one has ever been sued for the despicable acts that Watson has.  Going by prior NFL punishments was not only asinine, but a missed opportunity to make a bold statement.  Major fail.

 

 

Being sued does 100% NOT establish a legal precedent. Only courts set precedents, settlements do not. You have to be sued successfully for it to become a separate category legally. There is one outstanding case against Watson. It could go to court and he could lose, but failing that the judge is right, in law, not to hold settled civil suits that never saw court as establishing new precedent. 

[Gugny]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Being sued does 100% NOT establish a legal precedent. Only courts set precedents, settlements do not. You have to be sued successfully for it to become a separate category legally. There is one outstanding case against Watson. It could go to court and he could lose, but failing that the judge is right, in law, not to hold settled civil suits that never saw court as establishing new precedent. 

 

I still think she had an opportunity to recommend more games and failed to do so.  

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I still think she had an opportunity to recommend more games and failed to do so.  

 

She could have recommended more games. But she was right not to use the excuse of the settled law suits as a precedent to do so. I actually don't think her legal analysis was that far off for the reasons explained in that thread. Could it have been 8 or maybe 10 rather than 6? Sure. There is always an element of judgment call there. But her legal reasoning is pretty strong. I still think Goodell, ultimately, will increase it. But his room for manouvere is more limited than it was. That is why I see doubling as his realistic ceiling. 

[Dr. Who]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

She could have recommended more games. But she was right not to use the excuse of the settled law suits as a precedent to do so. I actually don't think her legal analysis was that far off for the reasons explained in that thread. Could it have been 8 or maybe 10 rather than 6? Sure. There is always an element of judgment call there. But her legal reasoning is pretty strong. I still think Goodell, ultimately, will increase it. But his room for manouvere is more limited than it was. That is why I see doubling as his realistic ceiling. 

I hope he does double it. No idea about legal reasoning, but I suspect that is closer to what the majority of people believe is merited by his actions insofar as it applies to his NFL career.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Dr. Who

[Scott7975]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Honestly this is the worst outcome. I was hoping the arbitrator would look at the evidence and say she didn’t see any evidence of sexual misconduct. Instead she believes it happened but in a non violent way.

 

I don’t care about the suspension, how did he avoid indictment. 

 

Why would you hope she found a scumbag innocent?

 

Do you not understand that civil court and criminal court have two different standards?

[GoBills808]

27 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Being sued does 100% NOT establish a legal precedent. Only courts set precedents, settlements do not. You have to be sued successfully for it to become a separate category legally. There is one outstanding case against Watson. It could go to court and he could lose, but failing that the judge is right, in law, not to hold settled civil suits that never saw court as establishing new precedent. 

The precedent was Roethisberger, by rights Watson should have gotten 300+ games.

[RyanC883]

On 8/1/2022 at 8:33 AM, Mango said:

 

This gets parroted a lot and I don't get it. You don't need to be charged with a crime for your employer to fire or suspend you. 

 

right, but there is a union and cba involved here, that tends to make this more complex

7 hours ago, Airseven said:

Suspension is fine for a non-criminal, off-field, personal perv matter. Watson should take his money, shut up, and move on. Of course ESPN is wall-to-wall methodically interjecting their political lean. 

 

all espn can do is interject their political lean.  They never cover sports.