Jump to content

NFL Suspends Dolphins owner Stephen Ross until October 17th, 2022 after investigation. Dolphins forfeit 2023 1st round pick and 2024 3rd round pick


Big Turk
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

As the judge stated, Watson wasn't informed by the nfl prior to his acts that it was wrong.  (Not verbatim but basically what she said)

 

No joke.

 

Though I think that this is a precursor to Godell appealing for 12 games for Watson in hopes the NFLPA doesn't file against them.  Basically him saying, "see, we punish owners too"

 

 

That is not at all what she said.  She said that the NFL never said the punishment went from 6 games (past violations) to 17 games (as requested by the NFL.)  

 

It's odd either way that they needed to specify, but she didn't say "you didn't tell him it was wrong!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

That is not at all what she said.  She said that the NFL never said the punishment went from 6 games (past violations) to 17 games (as requested by the NFL.)  

 

It's odd either way that they needed to specify, but she didn't say "you didn't tell him it was wrong!"

 

The league didn't give him fair notice.  I'm not sure how you would interpret that other than, they didn't tell him doing that was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, stuvian said:

it's becoming clearer by the day that these owners are the most ruthless, ethically challenged scumbags to walk the earth and Goodell is their enabler.

 

All that cheating and the Dolphins still suck!

 

So when will we be awarded the division by default?

 

Why do you lump them all together?  The have 32+ different personalities and characters. 

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

35 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

 

The league didn't give him fair notice.  I'm not sure how you would interpret that other than, they didn't tell him doing that was wrong.

 

lol --that's why hers is an idiotic conclusion.  The NFL can't possibly predetermine a list of all possible bad acts that would violate the personal conduct policy.

 

image.png.14424da64307d99d0bff2a62a1d6450b.png

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

Ha sweet mob justice. The 'tanking' accusation is no proof! No matter how you want to believe in it, it takes some proof.

 

Yet IDK why the NFL doesn't address this like the NHL, with a "draft lottery". There is indeed way too much a temptation in the NFL to lose for the bottom teams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, chongli said:

 

Over/under for when Tyreek Hill demands out of Miami this season? I say Week 12.

 

Depends if he changes his agent to like Drew Rosenhaus like Poyer did. He has advised clients to fake injuries and sit out when signed and not get raise while under contract before.

 

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

13 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

Highly highly unlikely that would happen and they would win. Courts are very reluctant to get involved in collectively bargained agreements...if the NFLPA didn't want him to have that power they should have not agreed to it, not try and challenge it in court after the fact. 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Highly unlikely they win given the CBA still gives Goodell final say.  It's the NFLPA's fault for agreeing to it.  The wording in Judge Robinson's written decision makes it very easy for Goodell to suspend him as long as he wants if the NFL appeals the suspension.

 

Well I have a different take due to some working in this judges report.  Something to the effect.  There wasn't violence or something along those lines it mentioned.  To me that would be a good reason to appeal and win in that the person who just spent months investigating feels it didn't raise to that level.  At the least, I'd be surprised if they didn't seek a temporary injunction till it went to court as he would be harmed if not allowed to play.

 

Understand NFLPA gave Roger the option to be judge, but they still have the option to sue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Wiz said:

 

The league didn't give him fair notice.  I'm not sure how you would interpret that other than, they didn't tell him doing that was wrong.

 

Fair notice to the players in the dramatic shift in punishment length.  Not just Watson.  If the standard punishment for speeding is a $100 fine, and 3 year later, for the same offense, someone else gets a $1000 fine, that's not "fair."

 

I am not defending Watson.  Sure sounds like he is a sexual deviant/assaulter.  Just showing that everyone knows sexual assault is wrong, and that Robinson was not saying that the NFLPA didn't know it is wrong.  Just that there was a dramatic shift in the punishment that the NFL wanted to impose.

  • Vomit 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

You can top feeling that way because it doesn't say that at all.

 

If a team reaches out to a player--the team is tampering and faces penalty.  That's it.

 

If a player reaches out to a team, the team is supposed to report it to the NFL.  No player in the NFL is bound to report tampering to the NFL. 

 

It's the same in the NBA. MLB has the same rule.  So does the NHL.   Why are people acting as if they have just learned about tampering and its rules?

 

Well it does actually say what i thought, but they just blame the offending team like you said. Which is crazy in my opinion, it takes two to tango.

 

Contact by Player. If a club is contacted by a player (or his representative) who is under contract to or whose negotiating rights are held by another club, and such player has not been given permission to negotiate with other clubs, or such player is not in a permissible negotiating period under the terms of an operative collective bargaining agreement, then the contacted club is prohibited from (i) negotiating with the player or his agent; (ii) discussing even in general terms the player’s possible employment with the contacted club; or (iii) discussing the player’s contract or his potential or ongoing contract negotiations with his current club

 

In addition, the contacted club representative must inform the player or his representative that under NFL rules the club is not permitted to discuss such matters, and, if such matters are raised by or with the player or his representative, the club representative must immediately report such contact to the owner or operating head of the club that holds the player’s rights. Nothing in this section shall preclude a club from negotiating with the certified agent of a prospective Unrestricted Free Agent during the two-day negotiating period, subject to that provision’s prohibition against direct contact by the club with the player himself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

Well it does actually say what i thought, but they just blame the offending team like you said. Which is crazy in my opinion, it takes two to tango.

 

Contact by Player. If a club is contacted by a player (or his representative) who is under contract to or whose negotiating rights are held by another club, and such player has not been given permission to negotiate with other clubs, or such player is not in a permissible negotiating period under the terms of an operative collective bargaining agreement, then the contacted club is prohibited from (i) negotiating with the player or his agent; (ii) discussing even in general terms the player’s possible employment with the contacted club; or (iii) discussing the player’s contract or his potential or ongoing contract negotiations with his current club

 

In addition, the contacted club representative must inform the player or his representative that under NFL rules the club is not permitted to discuss such matters, and, if such matters are raised by or with the player or his representative, the club representative must immediately report such contact to the owner or operating head of the club that holds the player’s rights. Nothing in this section shall preclude a club from negotiating with the certified agent of a prospective Unrestricted Free Agent during the two-day negotiating period, subject to that provision’s prohibition against direct contact by the club with the player himself

 

It doesn't.

 

You said "even when the player clearly engages back and have active, meetings, and open discussions in response", after being contacted by a team, he should be liable for punishment because "the player may not" do this. That's not the rule. 

 

Only if the player initiates the discussion is he at risk.  The rule does not say, if contacted, "players may not" talk to teams , etc.  In fact players are not obligated to report this illicit contact by a team to the NFL, but a team is required to notify the league of illicit tampering contact by a player (as you noted above).

 

This is explicitly why the League didn't and can't punish Brady in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Fair notice to the players in the dramatic shift in punishment length.  Not just Watson.  If the standard punishment for speeding is a $100 fine, and 3 year later, for the same offense, someone else gets a $1000 fine, that's not "fair."

 

I am not defending Watson.  Sure sounds like he is a sexual deviant/assaulter.  Just showing that everyone knows sexual assault is wrong, and that Robinson was not saying that the NFLPA didn't know it is wrong.  Just that there was a dramatic shift in the punishment that the NFL wanted to impose.

So then a better statement would be "the nfl didn't tell Watson HOW wrong it was" which in either event really shouldn't be measured in terms of sexual assault regarding the PCP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dolphin player must be so proud to play for this organization.

I'd love to hear what their true thoughts are.  I hope Tua wins them enough games to keep them out of the QB drafts and walks away

after next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It doesn't.

 

You said "even when the player clearly engages back and have active, meetings, and open discussions in response", after being contacted by a team, he should be liable for punishment because "the player may not" do this. That's not the rule. 

 

Only if the player initiates the discussion is he at risk.  The rule does not say, if contacted, "players may not" talk to teams , etc.  In fact players are not obligated to report this illicit contact by a team to the NFL, but a team is required to notify the league of illicit tampering contact by a player (as you noted above).

 

This is explicitly why the League didn't and can't punish Brady in this case.

 

I don't even know if this is worth arguing about. 

 

I said:

 

Quote

May be true but even when the player clearly engages back and have active, meetings, and open discussions in response?

 

What is the official tampering rule? Feel like it says "Players may not...." as well as "Teams may not..."

 

Which it does. This part of my post is separate from the other part of the post where I am literally asking a question not making a statement.

 

You said:

 

Quote

You can top feeling that way because it doesn't say that at all.

 

If a team reaches out to a player--the team is tampering and faces penalty.  That's it.

 

If a player reaches out to a team, the team is supposed to report it to the NFL.  No player in the NFL is bound to report tampering to the NFL. 

 

It's the same in the NBA. MLB has the same rule.  So does the NHL.   Why are people acting as if they have just learned about tampering and its rules?

 

Which both answers my question correctly but also tells me I am wrong for thinking per the rules that a player cannot contact another team while under contact. They cannot, but the onus is on the team they contacted to show them the door and then advise the league which you stated.

 

No need for arrogance, its just a discussion.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

I don't even know if this is worth arguing about. 

 

I said:

 

 

Which it does. This part of my post is separate from the other part of the post where I am literally asking a question not making a statement.

 

You said:

 

 

Which both answers my question correctly but also tells me I am wrong for thinking per the rules that a player cannot contact another team while under contact. They cannot, but the onus is on the team they contacted to show them the door and then advise the league which you stated.

 

No need for arrogance, its just a discussion.

 

 

 

 

Yeah not sure what you're stuck on in my response, or how it's "arrogant".  

 

"May be true but even when the player clearly engages back and have active, meetings, and open discussions in response?"

 

The answer is "no", if the player didn't initiate the discussion.  This didn't happen in this case so bringing up the rule where the player can't initiate tampering doesn't apply to this conversation.  The player "may" talk the tampering team without penalty--but we can agree that he shouldn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 


 

🤔 you did say that you had a high level meeting to attend 

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Only if the player initiates the discussion is he at risk.  The rule does not say, if contacted, "players may not" talk to teams , etc.  In fact players are not obligated to report this illicit contact by a team to the NFL, but a team is required to notify the league of illicit tampering contact by a player (as you noted above).

 

This is explicitly why the League didn't and can't punish Brady in this case.


 

if one signs an ethics clause 

 

wouldn’t ethics dictate the player report said interactions?

 

 

I mean if ya want to play all innocent 😇 and such 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:


 

🤔 you did say that you had a high level meeting to attend 


 

if one signs an ethics clause 

 

wouldn’t ethics dictate the player report said interactions?

 

 

I mean if ya want to play all innocent 😇 and such 

 

Obviously a player should walk away from a team he knows is tampering.  The other poster kept saying the player "may not" cooperate in any contact with a team that is tampering with him, such as Brady in this case. The rule doesn't say he may not, only that he may not initiate contact himself or through his agent.

 

Not sure what ethics clause is signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cle23 said:

 

Fair notice to the players in the dramatic shift in punishment length.  Not just Watson.  If the standard punishment for speeding is a $100 fine, and 3 year later, for the same offense, someone else gets a $1000 fine, that's not "fair."

 

I am not defending Watson.  Sure sounds like he is a sexual deviant/assaulter.  Just showing that everyone knows sexual assault is wrong, and that Robinson was not saying that the NFLPA didn't know it is wrong.  Just that there was a dramatic shift in the punishment that the NFL wanted to impose.

There’s nothing to compare Watsons situation to.  No one has ever been accused of being such a sexual predator vs so many victims.  He’s in a different category entirely.  I haven’t heard any non browns fans say that they think this is a fair punishment.  It’s a disgrace 

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

Just now, NewEra said:

There’s nothing to compare Watsons situation to.  No one has ever been accused of being such a sexual predator vs so many victims.  He’s in a different category entirely.  I haven’t heard any non browns fans say that they think this is a fair punishment.  It’s a disgrace 

 

Again,  the NFL brought the case as 4.  Not 24.  That's on them.  Not saying it's right, but the NFL chose to only bring up the 4 cases.  So in that case, it is somewhat comparable.

 

I am not a fan of Watson. I was against the trade.  Just trying to go by the facts of the case as it pertains to the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Again,  the NFL brought the case as 4.  Not 24.  That's on them.  Not saying it's right, but the NFL chose to only bring up the 4 cases.  So in that case, it is somewhat comparable.

 

I am not a fan of Watson. I was against the trade.  Just trying to go by the facts of the case as it pertains to the NFL.

Please, name another player that was accused of sexually abusing 4 women.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...