Jump to content

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


YoloinOhio
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Awwufelloff said:

A little late to the party but what is the most likely outcome in all of this? 

12 games, 10 mill fine if he agrees to counseling. Or indefinite if he does not. The fact he refuses to admit he did anything wrong or show any remorse is a huge issue for him (and makes it different from roethlisberger) as the league offered him 12 games as a settlement and he turned it down.  Another issue is he has 4 accusers in the case (we know it is a lot more but the league presented 4 in the case). On precedent, he should get 24 games (6 per assault) as Ben and zeke got 6 each for one woman. Ben had a previous case but his suspension was based only on one.

 

But the CBA didn’t have it spelled out that more than 6 games would be given for a first offense if there were multiple accusers or that nonviolent sexual assault would be punished extensively. That’s why the judge said they weren’t forward thinking. I think the CBA giving Roger final say would make the federal court back off if the nflpa sues because this has been collectively bargained already. I think Roger will use this “unprecedented” case to set a new standard of no tolerance and this is set up to make him look like a hero. 

  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

12 games, 10 mill fine if he agrees to counseling. Or indefinite if he does not. The fact he refuses to admit he did anything wrong or show any remorse is a huge issue for him (and makes it different from roethlisberger) as the league offered him 12 games as a settlement and he turned it down.  Another issue is he has 4 accusers in the case (we know it is a lot more but the league presented 4 in the case). On precedent, he should get 24 games (6 per assault) as Ben and zeke got 6 each for one woman. Ben had a previous case but his suspension was based only on one.

 

But the CBA didn’t have it spelled out that more than 6 games would be given for a first offense if there were multiple accusers or that nonviolent sexual assault would be punished extensively. That’s why the judge said they weren’t forward thinking. I think the CBA giving Roger final say would make the federal court back off if the nflpa sues because this has been collectively bargained already. I think Roger will use this “unprecedented” case to set a new standard of no tolerance and this is set up to make him look like a hero. 

 

That's a silly argument by Robinson.  If you kill 4 people, it's not the same sentence as if you kill 1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

That's a silly argument by Robinson.  If you kill 4 people, it's not the same sentence as if you kill 1. 

 

She's just saying that the NFL should have collectively bargained for the suspension schedule for every number of murders conceivable--each listed separately so even an NFL player or his union rep could understand.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

That's a silly argument by Robinson.  If you kill 4 people, it's not the same sentence as if you kill 1. 

Right but she thinks it wasn’t spelled out in the CBA so it’s the fault of the nfl that she leaned on the only precedent she had and followed the rules. There is some thought that she did this purposely to set up Roger so he can swoop in. If you read her ruling, it certainly sounds like she’s about to lay the hammer down on him. She finds him guilty of sexual assault, not credible, and not remorseful. She calls his behavior egregious. Then says she has to give him 6 games because there is nothing saying it should be more. 

Edited by YoloinOhio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Right but she thinks it wasn’t spelled out in the CBA so it’s the fault of the nfl that she leaned on the only precedent she had and followed the rules. There is some thought that she did this purposely to set up Roger so he can swoop in. If you read her ruling, it certainly sounds like she’s about to lay the hammer down on him. She finds him guilty of sexual assault, not credible, and not remorseful. She calls his behavior egregious. Then says she has to give him 6 games because there is nothing saying it should be more. 

 

 

I've said so a few times.

 

There's really no other explanation other than she is doing exactly what the NFL expected her to do--low ball the suspension so they could come in with righteous hammer dropping to quell the public disgust.

 

Unfortunately she had to come up with a reason that really compromises her presumed legal intelligence.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I've said so a few times.

 

There's really no other explanation other than she is doing exactly what the NFL expected her to do--low ball the suspension so they could come in with righteous hammer dropping to quell the public disgust.

 

Unfortunately she had to come up with a reason that really compromises her presumed legal intelligence.

It certainly appears to be a big PR setup for the nfl. Whatever, as long as Watson doesn’t get away with his BS.

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

5 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

It certainly appears to be a big PR setup for the nfl. Whatever, as long as Watson doesn’t get away with his BS.

 

 

It's all part of the show that the NFL has created out of this mess--all for our viewing/and reading  pleasure. Watson's awful human habits have been an unexpected boon to the NFL this off season.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

They can but they’ve acquiesced to the 6 games. They had to appeal it by Thursday morning and did not. So if they seek and get an injunction (no guarantee they will get it), week 7 is the earliest he could play. 

That makes sense to me, but isn’t it theoretically possible that the league suspends him for less than 6 games?  I mean, it’s highly unlikely but…

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mannc said:

That makes sense to me, but isn’t it theoretically possible that the league suspends him for less than 6 games?  I mean, it’s highly unlikely but…

No, they wouldn’t settle for less than 12 before the ruling so they 100% won’t do that now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

If the NFL (as the final arbiter of suspensions) gives him 17 games, the 6 game suspension no longer exists.  If the NFLPA sues in Federal court over the actual suspension, why wouldn't they seek an injunction so he could play until the case is decided?  At least that could get him playing week 1, possibly more, until the court decision (6 or 17 games) is handed down.

Florio (a former lawyer for what it's worth) sees this as unlikely.

 

The basic argument seems to go like this — because the NFL appealed Judge Sue L. Robinson’s six-game suspension of Watson, that punishment disappears. It will be replaced (as the argument continues) by whatever Peter Harvey, the Commissioner’s designee, decides to impose. Thus, when the time comes to take the NFL to court (and in turn to try to delay the commencement of the suspension), a preliminary injunction entered by the court would commence as of Week One, not Week Seven.

 

There are several serious problems with this contention.

 

First, the NFL did not challenge the six-game suspension. The NFL argued only that six games aren’t enough. The NFL’s appeal focuses on whether the suspension should extend beyond the first six weeks.

 

Second, the NFLPA didn’t appeal the decision. That would have been the best and safest way to put Week One through Week Six in play for a court order that would allow Watson to play. The union apparently balanced P.R. concerns (it declared on Sunday night that it wouldn’t challenge Judge Robinson’s ruling) and legal strategies in deciding not to place the first six weeks in issue by filing its own appeal. And so the union will instead make the argument (weak as it may be) that an appeal by the league operates as a clearing of the decks regarding the unchallenged six-week ban.

 

Third, nothing in the Personal Conduct Policy indicates that an appeal automatically wipes the prior punishment from the books. Indeed, the policy expressly states that the appeal “may overturn, reduce, modify or increase the discipline previously issued.” This means that the prior punishment survives the mechanical act of appealing the decision, with the question in this specific case being only whether the punishment will “increase” beyond six games.

Edited by Doc Brown
  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Florio (a former lawyer for what it's worth) sees this as unlikely.

 

The basic argument seems to go like this — because the NFL appealed Judge Sue L. Robinson’s six-game suspension of Watson, that punishment disappears. It will be replaced (as the argument continues) by whatever Peter Harvey, the Commissioner’s designee, decides to impose. Thus, when the time comes to take the NFL to court (and in turn to try to delay the commencement of the suspension), a preliminary injunction entered by the court would commence as of Week One, not Week Seven.

 

There are several serious problems with this contention.

 

First, the NFL did not challenge the six-game suspension. The NFL argued only that six games aren’t enough. The NFL’s appeal focuses on whether the suspension should extend beyond the first six weeks.

 

Second, the NFLPA didn’t appeal the decision. That would have been the best and safest way to put Week One through Week Six in play for a court order that would allow Watson to play. The union apparently balanced P.R. concerns (it declared on Sunday night that it wouldn’t challenge Judge Robinson’s ruling) and legal strategies in deciding not to place the first six weeks in issue by filing its own appeal. And so the union will instead make the argument (weak as it may be) that an appeal by the league operates as a clearing of the decks regarding the unchallenged six-week ban.

 

Third, nothing in the Personal Conduct Policy indicates that an appeal automatically wipes the prior punishment from the books. Indeed, the policy expressly states that the appeal “may overturn, reduce, modify or increase the discipline previously issued.” This means that the prior punishment survives the mechanical act of appealing the decision, with the question in this specific case being only whether the punishment will “increase” beyond six games.

 

It would be hard to argue that the NFL, by appealing the decision, "did not challenge" the decision.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Wiz said:

Maybe Watson should have tried some drugs instead.  Sounds right up his alley.

296913794_596929661801011_81009483410097

Yes, I agree. Anyone thinking of sexually assaulting someone (or 27+ people) just take some hallucinagenics instead please. Are these transgressions supposed to be comparable in some way? I've seen a lot of people arguing online saying Watson is only in trouble because he is black but white QB's can do drugs and it's ok. Not sure those 2 things are comparable in even the slightest.

 

One question I did have is if Watson is suspended 17 games, does that mean he's eligible to return if by some miracle the Browns do make the playoffs? And how does that impact his contract situation if he does end up playing 1 wild card game? Maybe the Browns would decide not to activate him for that game if it would have a negative impact on his contract?

Edited by KDIGGZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It would be hard to argue that the NFL, by appealing the decision, "did not challenge" the decision.  

 

You appear to be avoiding a lot of salient context just to present this semantic point. The NFL would be challenging the severity of the punishment based on the decision rendered. He has already been found to be in violation of the code of conduct on several grounds. You're intentionally conflating judgment with sentencing. I'll bet you're smart enough to know that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

Mike Florio seems to think that Peter Harvey has the ethics of someone who has sold out to NFLPA and become a laywer on TV like him.

All speculation and suppositions. 

 

3 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

So is there a date when this appeal will be heard, and a ruling handed down?

 

No other than “expedited.”

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

18 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It would be hard to argue that the NFL, by appealing the decision, "did not challenge" the decision.  

I thought that too because of the Brady and Elliott cases but the NFLPA appealed those suspensions right away.  This time they didn't.  The NFL mouthpiece (Ian Rapaport) even admitted as such.  My guess to why they didn't appeal is  Watson't camp objected as they're unlikely to win in federal court.  Watson would rather give up a smaller amount of money this year (around 1m) even if he's out for the whole year than miss the 2023 season where he'd have to fork over 40 million plus should he lose the appeal.

 

 

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

  • Simon locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...