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

[Big Turk]

25 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

I don't understand what indefinite means in this context. He has settled all but one of the cases.

 

Indefinite means the league will review his situation on a year to year basis I believe, like they did with Josh Gordon.  Basically means he is out for this year and then they will review it again next year and determine if he is able to play or not.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Big Turk

[YoloinOhio]

2 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

NFL wants a full year, it's been reported numerous times.  I doubt they are going to split the difference when Goodell is the one making the decision.

It’s so cute how people thought Roger wasn’t going to get what he wanted when the process is literally set up to give him what he wants 

Edited August 3, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, eball said:

 

The CBA is very specific and says the Commissioner's (or his delegee's) decision on this appeal is final and binding.  Those provisions were agreed to by the players and owners.  The basis for the suit would be to challenge the CBA itself -- which isn't happening.

 

Watson isn't suiting up W1.

 

You cannot oust the courts by virtue of an employment contract. Now the bar for the courts actually finding that, given the wording of the CBA, it has any authority to overrule is very high. The NFLPA and Watson have a fight on to reach that bar. But an injunction for interim relief to allow the case to be heard is a possibility. 

 

That said, even if it goes that way, I don't see Watson suiting up week 1 under any circumstances. In the circumstances where he has injucted the NFL and the case is pending even Cleveland wouldn't be stupid enough to put him out there, surely? And Goodell has the exempt list available to him.

 

The more likely scenario is if Goodell goes to a year Watson goes to the courts for an expedited hearing so that is resolved in time for him not to miss more than the original 6 games in the event he is succsssful. 

 

My gut still says 12 games is where this is ending up.

[Back2Buff]

On 8/1/2022 at 10:46 AM, NoSaint said:

again, landing him in court answering questions about Kraft, etc… 

 

nope - not likely happening 

 

What were you saying?

[cle23]

33 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Yep 

 

 

 

Again, is it precedent though when there is an owner accused of almost identical, and actually worse things than Watson, who received next to no punishment?  Snyder is accused of sexual assault of I believe around 20 women, and also was accused of trying to pimp out the cheerleaders to business friends.   Punishing an owner for league related violations is A LOT different than punishing one for sexual assault violations. 

 

Watson should be punished, and I'm sure it will be more than 6 games, but the league has to be careful to some extent too because they are ignoring their own CBA when it's convenient for them.

[Big Turk]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You cannot oust the courts by virtue of an employment contract. Now the bar for the courts actually finding that, given the wording of the CBA, it has any authority to overrule is very high. The NFLPA and Watson have a fight on to reach that bar. But an injunction for interim relief to allow the case to be heard is a possibility. 

 

That said, even if it goes that way, I don't see Watson suiting up week 1 under any circumstances. In the circumstances where he has injucted the NFL and the case is pending even Cleveland wouldn't be stupid enough to put him out there, surely? And Goodell has the exempt list available to him.

 

The more likely scenario is if Goodell goes to a year Watson goes to the courts for an expedited hearing so that is resolved in time for him not to miss more than the original 6 games in the event he is succsssful. 

 

My gut still says 12 games is where this is ending up.

 

The courts don't like to make decisions related to collectively bargained agreements when what they are being asked to decide has already been agreed to in there by both parties. It would likely be dismissed if the suit was brought to court, and likely fairly quickly.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Big Turk

[YoloinOhio]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You cannot oust the courts by virtue of an employment contract. Now the bar for the courts actually finding that, given the wording of the CBA, it has any authority to overrule is very high. The NFLPA and Watson have a fight on to reach that bar. But an injunction for interim relief to allow the case to be heard is a possibility. 

 

That said, even if it goes that way, I don't see Watson suiting up week 1 under any circumstances. In the circumstances where he has injucted the NFL and the case is pending even Cleveland wouldn't be stupid enough to put him out there, surely? And Goodell has the exempt list available to him.

 

The more likely scenario is if Goodell goes to a year Watson goes to the courts for an expedited hearing so that is resolved in time for him not to miss more than the original 6 games in the event he is succsssful. 

 

My gut still says 12 games is where this is ending up.

12 seems to be the number that goodell would not go below in order to settle, and I could be wrong but I thought the nflpa only threatened to sue if they ruled 1 year. So 12 could do it. 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Big Turk said:

 

The courts don't like to make decisions related to collectively bargained agreements when what they are being asked to decide has already been agreed to in there by both parties. It would likely be dismissed if the suit was brought to court.

 

Agreed, they don't. The bar is high. You have to demonstrate that one party has acted irrationally on the basis of the agreement. 

 

But simply by virtue of words in a CBA you cannot oust the courts. If they feel that bar has been reached they can intervene. 

[YoloinOhio]

3 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Again, is it precedent though when there is an owner accused of almost identical, and actually worse things than Watson, who received next to no punishment?  Snyder is accused of sexual assault of I believe around 20 women, and also was accused of trying to pimp out the cheerleaders to business friends.   Punishing an owner for league related violations is A LOT different than punishing one for sexual assault violations. 

 

Watson should be punished, and I'm sure it will be more than 6 games, but the league has to be careful to some extent too because they are ignoring their own CBA when it's convenient for them.

Isn’t the Snyder thing still going on? I didn’t think a decision was made on him yet. They did remove an owner not long ago for sexual harassment (in Carolina)

[Big Turk]

1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said:

12 seems to be the number that goodell would not go below in order to settle, and I could be wrong but I thought the nflpa only threatened to sue if they ruled 1 year. So 12 could do it. 

 

Let them sue...the precedent in courts does not favor them being willing to overturn collectively bargained agreements included in there.  They know it's basically a bluff because they know there is a 99.5% chance the case would be dismissed.

[Virgil]

I'm confused, so are we allowed to reach out to these women for massages yet or not?

[Big Turk]

1 minute ago, Virgil said:

I'm confused, so are we allowed to reach out to these women for massages yet or not?

 

Watson isn't...he must use a team appointed massage therapist...and she must weigh 300 lbs or more and have a light moustache. 🤣

Edited August 3, 2022 by Big Turk

[YoloinOhio]

4 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Let them sue...the precedent in courts does not favor them being willing to overturn collectively bargained agreements included in there.  They know it's basically a bluff because they know there is a 99.5% chance the case would be dismissed.

I don’t even know what grounds they have to sue? They agreed to  the CBA that shows he has the final decision. 

[mannc]

6 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Again, is it precedent though when there is an owner accused of almost identical, and actually worse things than Watson, who received next to no punishment?  Snyder is accused of sexual assault of I believe around 20 women, and also was accused of trying to pimp out the cheerleaders to business friends.   Punishing an owner for league related violations is A LOT different than punishing one for sexual assault violations. 

 

Watson should be punished, and I'm sure it will be more than 6 games, but the league has to be careful to some extent too because they are ignoring their own CBA when it's convenient for them.

Snyder was accused of groping one woman in 2009, an allegation he denied...most definitely not worse than what Watson was accused of—and what Sue Robinson concluded Watson actually did.  This sort of “whataboutism” isn’t going to save Watson. 

[Big Turk]

11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Agreed, they don't. The bar is high. You have to demonstrate that one party has acted irrationally on the basis of the agreement. 

 

But simply by virtue of words in a CBA you cannot oust the courts. If they feel that bar has been reached they can intervene. 

 

The NFLPA said they would argue that Watson already served a full year suspension because he didn't play last year but that is nonsense because it was HIM that refused to take the field and said he wouldn't play another snap for the Texans even after they bent over backwards to try and mend the fences with him, and he still got paid anyways, so that argument doesn't hold any water.  Their boat has a giant hole in the middle of it and they are trying to bail water but the ship is sinking fast.

5 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

I don’t even know what grounds they have to sue? They agreed to  the CBA that shows he has the final decision. 

 

Claiming Watson already served a full year suspension which makes no sense since he was the one who refused to ever suit up for Houston again, not the team imposing the suspension, and he still got paid.  They have no grounds. It's a bluff and one that will end badly for the NFLPA

3 minutes ago, mannc said:

Snyder was accused of groping one woman in 2009, an allegation he denied...most definitely not worse than what Watson was accused of—and what Sue Robinson concluded Watson actually did.  This sort of “whataboutism” isn’t going to save Watson. 

 

You are also forgetting about the systemic ingrained culture of sexual harassment that was reported to be there, cheerleaders having pantie shots taken of them without their permission up their skirts and other pictures taken(from I believe changing rooms) that ended up in an internal calendar they made with them on it..again without their permission.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/08/26/redskins-cheerleaders-video-daniel-snyder-washington/

Edited August 3, 2022 by Big Turk

[YoloinOhio]

3 minutes ago, mannc said:

Snyder was accused of groping one woman in 2009, an allegation he denied...most definitely not worse than what Watson was accused of—and what Sue Robinson concluded Watson actually did.  This sort of “whataboutism” isn’t going to save Watson. 

It’s all they have at this point. How about watson actually be held accountable for all this ***** instead of pointing the finger elsewhere? It’s sickening. 

[StHustle]

54 minutes ago, Dablitzkrieg said:

Probably 9 to 10 games.  Split the difference in what both sides recommended

only that’s not splitting the difference. The NFL wanted 17 games and the judge gave him 6. That’s a difference of a whopping 11 games. Splitting that would be 11-12 games

[Logic]

I see the "12 games" guess thrown around a lot today, and it seems like a likely outcome. 

The sad thing is that even THAT is not enough.

Nothing less than a full season's suspension feels like enough.

The dude's actions and his violations of the personal conduct policy were pretty egregious.

[Warcodered]

Just now, YoloinOhio said:

It’s all they have at this point. How about watson actually be held accountable for all this ***** instead of pointing the finger elsewhere? It’s sickening. 

Honestly if it doesn't look he's actually going to somehow get less time through it, he should just accept whatever punishment he gets given just to get past it if nothing else.

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

I don’t even know what grounds they have to sue? They agreed to  the CBA that shows he has the final decision. 

 

They would have to argue that based on the findings of the arbitrator the level of increase from Goodell is irrational and therefor not a good faith adherence to the terms of the CBA and therefore is essentially a breach of the employment contract.

 

One suspects the basis of the irrationality claim will be a comparison to the non punishment of owners accused of similar given that is what they used in argument to the arbitrator. 

 

It is an uphill climb but that is their route. I agree with others who has said that the court will start from a place where it is reluctant to intervene.

[Gambit]

What a shame it will be if this scumbag never plays another down again. 

[Big Turk]

Just now, Logic said:

I see the "12 games" guess thrown around a lot today, and it seems like a likely outcome. 

The sad thing is that even THAT is not enough.

Nothing less than a full season's suspension feels like enough.

The dude's actions and his violations of the personal conduct policy were pretty egregious.

 

Why? Goodell is judge, jury and executioner now and  see no logical reason the NFL doesn't impose the penalty they want, with the NFLPA having not a leg to stand on to challenge it in court.

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They would have to argue that based on the findings of the arbitrator the level of increase from Goodell is irrational and therefor not a good faith adherence to the terms of the CBA and therefore is essentially a breach of the employment contract.

 

One suspects the basis of the irrationality claim will be a comparison to the non punishment of owners accused of similar given that is what they used in argument to the arbitrator. 

 

It is an uphill climb but that is their route. I agree with others who has said that the court will start from a place where it is reluctant to intervene.

 

I think it would be hard to conclude based on the factual findings of the investigation that Goodell's behavior was irrational. Watson may never play another down in the NFL again.

[Warcodered]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

They would have to argue that based on the findings of the arbitrator the level of increase from Goodell is irrational and therefor not a good faith adherence to the terms of the CBA and therefore is essentially a breach of the employment contract.

 

One suspects the basis of the irrationality claim will be a comparison to the non punishment of owners accused of similar given that is what they used in argument to the arbitrator. 

 

It is an uphill climb but that is their route. I agree with others who has said that the court will start from a place where it is reluctant to intervene.

Didn't they accept the findings of the arbitrator, who happened to have thrown that particular argument about ownership out?

[MiltonWaddams]

I understand that it is the union's job to protect its members. However, word is that the NFLPA is going to sue the NFL if/when they levy a heavier suspension/fine upon Watson. The union then comes across as condoning the individuals actions, thus setting a dangerous precedent...or does it? Do they just intend a show of force without real action so as to say "we tried"? What a calamity.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Warcodered said:

Didn't they accept the findings of the arbitrator, who happened to have thrown that particular argument about ownership out?

 

It's a good point. I haven't read exactly what she said on that point. She may have killed that avenue off for them. 

[Process]

Just to make sure I understand correctly, the NFL is appealing.....to itself?

 

What a system.

[Big Turk]

Just now, MiltonWaddams said:

I understand that it is the union's job to protect its members. However, word is that the NFLPA is going to sue the NFL if/when they levy a heavier suspension/fine upon Watson. The union then comes across as condoning the individuals actions, thus setting a dangerous precedent...or does it? Do they just intend a show of force without real action so as to say "we tried"? What a calamity.

 

And that will likely be thrown out of court rather quickly.  They have no real basis for challenging it based on the findings of the judge who concludes that Watson is a scumbag.

Just now, Process said:

Just to make sure I understand correctly, the NFL is appealing.....to itself?

 

What a system.

 

Or to someone Goodell appoints...likely himself

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Process said:

Just to make sure I understand correctly, the NFL is appealing.....to itself?

 

What a system.

 

*whiny Florio voice*

 

RIGGED NFL KANGAROO COURT

 

[MiltonWaddams]

Just now, Process said:

Just to make sure I understand correctly, the NFL is appealing.....to itself?

 

What a system.

Nope. The arbitrator was a neutral party. They are appealing the neutral party's decision. New process this year to allow the NFL to look better than they really are...

[YoloinOhio]

3 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Why? Goodell is judge, jury and executioner now and  see no logical reason the NFL doesn't impose the penalty they want, with the NFLPA having not a leg to stand on to challenge it in court.

 

I think it would be hard to conclude based on the factual findings of the investigation that Goodell's behavior was irrational. Watson may never play another down in the NFL again.

Agree because the findings of her decisions are not being appealed and can’t be appealed.  She found him guilty of 3 infractions under the conduct policy.  Those are binding.

She recommended a Penalty -

The NFL is appealing the length of the PENALTY. Had she NOT found infractions, The NFL could not have appealed at all. Why the courts would feel a need to overrule the league is beyond me.

[Gugny]

5 minutes ago, StHustle said:

only that’s not splitting the difference. The NFL wanted 17 games and the judge gave him 6. That’s a difference of a whopping 11 games. Splitting that would be 11-12 games

 

NFL said full season.  NFLPA said nothing.  Split would be 8-9 games.

[Process]

Just now, MiltonWaddams said:

Nope. The arbitrator was a neutral party. They are appealing the neutral party's decision. New process this year to allow the NFL to look better than they really are...

Right. So there is no neutral party. At the end of the day the NFL makes whatever decision they want. 

 

I'm glad they are "appealing" by the way, personally don't think he should ever play again. Just laughing at how absurd the process is.

[DrDawkinstein]

15 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Isn’t the Snyder thing still going on? I didn’t think a decision was made on him yet. They did remove an owner not long ago for sexual harassment (in Carolina)

 

Who removed an owner?

 

A Sports Illustrated story was dropping, and Richardson announced he'd sell, but there was no formal process or vote, or even known pressure from the league. The other owners certainly werent going to call anyone else out considering the way most were behaving back then (and some still are today).

 

[Logic]

 

[YoloinOhio]

11 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

NFL said full season.  NFLPA said nothing.  Split would be 8-9 games.

Goodell could have already settled for 8 games but didn’t . The report was he wouldn’t go below 12 and they wouldn’t go above 8.

So much for that sweet structure of the  browns contract ie the only reason he went there 

Edited August 3, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[eball]

13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It's a good point. I haven't read exactly what she said on that point. She may have killed that avenue off for them. 

 

Yeah...I mean, I understand why all of the media right now is talking about how Watson could start W1 pending court action but the odds are realistically probably less than 1%.

 

[Logic]

 

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

9 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

The NFLPA said they would argue that Watson already served a full year suspension because he didn't play last year but that is nonsense because it was HIM that refused to take the field and said he wouldn't play another snap for the Texans even after they bent over backwards to try and mend the fences with him, and he still got paid anyways, so that argument doesn't hold any water.  Their boat has a giant hole in the middle of it and they are trying to bail water but the ship is sinking fast.

 

Claiming Watson already served a full year suspension which makes no sense since he was the one who refused to ever suit up for Houston again, not the team imposing the suspension, and he still got paid.  They have no grounds. It's a bluff and one that will end badly for the NFLPA

 

You are also forgetting about the systemic ingrained culture of sexual harassment that was reported to be there, cheerleaders having pantie shots taken of them without their permission up their skirts and other pictures taken(from I believe changing rooms) that ended up in an internal calendar they made with them on it..again without their permission.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/08/26/redskins-cheerleaders-video-daniel-snyder-washington/

 

 

I think it's pretty easy to argue that Watson sitting out last year was a de facto suspension. If Watson had never received a massage or if these allegations never surfaced what are the odds he would've played last year? I'm putting it at 100% (it might not have been in Houston, but it would've been easy to trade him). An established franchise QB sitting out for an entire season would have been unprecedented. 

 

Sexual harassment = / = sexual assault

 

Both are scummy (not to mention illegal), but assault is more serious than harassment. What Snyder did is not a great comparison. Kraft and his 100% consensual rub and tug are not a great comparison either. 

[Gugny]

5 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Goodell could have already settled for 8 games but didn’t . The report was he wouldn’t go below 12 and they wouldn’t go above 8.

So much for that sweet structure of the  browns contract ie the only reason he went there 

 

I just have a hard time believing any of these scumbags.  I feel like both sides have known what the end game will be and that they're going through all of these motions so both of them can claim to have done everything possible for their interested parties.  I think the retired judge exercise was a complete sham.  I think the NFLPA knows, and has known, damn well that this was going to be up to Goodell from day one.  And I think all of this crap that's happening now is pure optics.

 

I'll tell you one thing for certain ... I'm glad this has nothing to do with the Buffalo Bills!

 

[thewookie1]

3 minutes ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

 

 

I think it's pretty easy to argue that Watson sitting out last year was a de facto suspension. If Watson had never received a massage or if these allegations never surfaced what are the odds he would've played last year? I'm putting it at 100% (it might not have been in Houston, but it would've been easy to trade him). An established franchise QB sitting out for an entire season would have been unprecedented. 

 

Sexual harassment = / = sexual assault

 

Both are scummy (not to mention illegal), but assault is more serious than harassment. What Snyder did is not a great comparison. Kraft and his 100% consensual rub and tug are not a great comparison either. 

Watson was still paid for last season so it wouldn’t equal a full season suspension. Additionally he stated that he refused to play for the Texans so it’d be hard to argue it was a team imposed suspension