jarntt
Well-Known Member
That's kind of a dumb comment. You said: Ironic that the judge argued (past tense) that the NFL is attempting to do just that. Hand down a penalty outside the parameters of the "sentencing guidelines". How do you know if it is outside the parameters of what is considered appropriate under the CBA until you know what it even is? What if he goes with 7 or 8 games? What they spoke about throughout the process isn't necessarily what they will actually do and especially since Goodell isn't hearing the appeal himself. More importantly the CBA, as far as I know, doesn't have any language at all that would restrict the suspension to 6 games so I don't know where this comes from.So the NFL is appealing to give him a lighter sentence obviously
Most of all, there are no comparable cases ever heard as part of the NFL code of conduct policy. The hearing officer stated he was guilty and he showed no remorse. Perhaps because it was her first ever NFL case, she mistakenly used other cases with one victim as a comparison to suspend a guy with 30 victims over many many months. That is just asinine on her part. Do you get the same sentence for one robbery (or pick your crime) as 30? Not if sentenced consecutively and no one would get a concurrent sentence and also give the minimum with that many cases. Although, in her defense, this is somewhat explained by the fact that only 4ish cases were presented to her. Goodell, however, can easily show that 4 or more so 30 cases should not be the same as one case and should get more than 6 games and in fact could easily double or triple the sentence without even bringing any question as to whether or not he went against the CBA. But, that doesn't fit the narrative of what's best for your team. The Hell with those women amirite?