Jump to content

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


YoloinOhio
 Share

Recommended Posts

Her reasoning is incredibly dumb:

 

 “NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to – and consistency of consequence – for those in the NFL subject to the Policy. While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct, I do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this position portends for the NFL and its players.”

 

How on earth is the NFL supposed to anticipate every way in which its players can potentially and serially abuse others, so that they can't print out a suspension schedule for this or that?  She states his abuse was unprecedented in NFL annals,.....yet says he only gets the 6 gamer because, you know, he didn't know he might suspended for more.

 

She accuses the NFL of changing its culture....without fair notice!!!

 

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:


geez. Not the headline i’d have gone with.

 

 

Come on---that team went 2 full seasons with only one victory!

 

These scumbag Haslams will take this W

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that the NFL drops the hammer on an owner just as they are contemplating an appeal off the Watson suspension.

 

This one isn't hard to figure out.  NFL is the entity playing 5D chess.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

This doesn’t say anything new. We already know all of this.
 

 

 

And its all you are ever going to know.  Texas law prohibits discussing indictments.  People aren't going to go to jail just to explain to you why Watson wasn't indicted for what would be a handful of misdemeanors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Her reasoning is incredibly dumb:

 

 “NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to – and consistency of consequence – for those in the NFL subject to the Policy. While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct, I do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this position portends for the NFL and its players.”

 

How on earth is the NFL supposed to anticipate every way in which its players can potentially and serially abuse others, so that they can't print out a suspension schedule for this or that?  She states his abuse was unprecedented in NFL annals,.....yet says he only gets the 6 gamer because, you know, he didn't know he might suspended for more.

 

She accuses the NFL of changing its culture....without fair notice!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Come on---that team went 2 full seasons with only one victory!

 

These scumbag Haslams will take this W


 

I hate to continually have to disclaimer that I’m not supporting Watson - but I’m not with the following statement…

 

her stance wasn’t that this was some novel case. It was a non violent sexual assault. The nfl presented 5 incidents, and 1 was removed. There’s been some parameters over non violent sexual assault punishment. The uniqueness of his case being a volume of 4 incidents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NoSaint said:


 

I hate to continually have to disclaimer that I’m not supporting Watson - but I’m not with the following statement…

 

her stance wasn’t that this was some novel case. It was a non violent sexual assault. The nfl presented 5 incidents, and 1 was removed. There’s been some parameters over non violent sexual assault punishment. The uniqueness of his case being a volume of 4 incidents. 

Her definition of nonviolent is laughable.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Her definition of nonviolent is laughable.


Her role was to set a ridiculously low suspension (the idiotic reasoning makes her performance a bit less authentic) so that the NFL can come with the righteous thunder of “this will not stand!”…

 

Everyone is playing their part.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NoSaint said:


 

I hate to continually have to disclaimer that I’m not supporting Watson - but I’m not with the following statement…

 

her stance wasn’t that this was some novel case. It was a non violent sexual assault. The nfl presented 5 incidents, and 1 was removed. There’s been some parameters over non violent sexual assault punishment. The uniqueness of his case being a volume of 4 incidents. 


She absolutely described it as novel—in fact she said “his pattern of conduct is more egregious than ever before reviewed by the NFL”. 
 

Clearly she is also acknowledging more than 4 cases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:


Her role was to set a ridiculously low suspension (the idiotic reasoning makes her performance a bit less authentic) so that the NFL can come with the righteous thunder of “this will not stand!”…

 

Everyone is playing their part.  

The only thing less surprising than the NFL sabotaging itself by appointing a patent attorney to arbitrate one of the more high profile sex assault cases in recent memory is TSWers trying to defend the subsequent ruling.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

The only thing less surprising than the NFL sabotaging itself by appointing a patent attorney to arbitrate one of the more high profile sex assault cases in recent memory is TSWers trying to defend the subsequent ruling.

 

They didn't appoint her to THIS case.  They jointly appointed her to rule over all cases of the PCP.  Just so happens this is the first one to come up.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

The only thing less surprising than the NFL sabotaging itself by appointing a patent attorney to arbitrate one of the more high profile sex assault cases in recent memory is TSWers trying to defend the subsequent ruling.

Yes, because the group here is far more savvy at employment law (remember, this is an employment law case)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:


She absolutely described it as novel—in fact she said “his pattern of conduct is more egregious than ever before reviewed by the NFL”. 
 

Clearly she is also acknowledging more than 4 cases. 


She expressly said in the decision that she was only considering the 4 cases. But even those 4 cases make it egregious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that there really is only one appropriate punishment in such a case, and that is to cut off his goolies 

 

 

On a serious note though, my real concern with the Judge's decision is this mythical "non-violent sexual assault" concept she has come up with. I mean, WTF does that even mean?

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Gunvald's Husse said:

On a serious note though, my real concern with the Judge's decision is this mythical "non-violent sexual assault" concept she has come up with. I mean, WTF does that even mean?

My guess is the judge believes there's a distinction between “violent” sexual assault (cases where there is physical force or a direct threat of violence) and “non-violent” sexual assault (cases involving manipulation or coercion).  Most state laws don't make that distinction (it's all just "sexual assault") so it puzzles me too.  Assault is still in the ruling so Goodell can simply say any kind of sexual assault is reprehensible and damages the shield to justify extending Watson's suspension.  Honestly, Robinson left Goodell with enough meat in her decision where he could easily justify a full year ban.  I don't think he will but he could.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

My guess is the judge believes there's a distinction between “violent” sexual assault (cases where there is physical force or a direct threat of violence) and “non-violent” sexual assault (cases involving manipulation or coercion).  Most state laws don't make that distinction (it's all just "sexual assault") so it puzzles me too.  Assault is still in the ruling so Goodell can simply say any kind of sexual assault is reprehensible and damages the shield to justify extending Watson's suspension.  Honestly, Robinson left Goodell with enough meat in her decision where he could easily justify a full year ban.  I don't think he will but he could.

That would be my guess but I am still wondering how (and why, although the way mhy be that she had to find a reason for the - frankly ridiculous IMO - 6-game ban after she hammered him in her findings fo fact) she came up with it. As you say, legally "sexual assault" doesn't actually need violence (no assault does, if there is actual violence then in is "battery"). Investigating sexual assaults (these days in a non-criminal context) is part of my day job and I have never come across such a distinction, even from review panels without the legal background that, presumably, this judge has. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • YoloinOhio changed the title to Judge Sue Robinson recommends 6 game suspension for Watson; NFL will appeal
  • Simon locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...