NFL appealing Watson suspension

[jarntt]

So the NFL is appealing to give him a lighter sentence obviously

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.

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?

 

[Stakesarehigh]

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.

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?

You're being extremely dramatic.

Although in your defense you are one of the few in the original Watson thread who has remained consistent. So at least there is that.

I've said multiple times now I have no real issue if they raised it to a year. I do take an issue with an indefinite suspension without criminal charges. The fact he settled shouldn't weigh in.

But I'm attempting to have a real dialog around his discipline practices (which until this case everyone thought Roger was dogshit).

And that's what the NFLPA will address if/when they push this

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I never once said public opinion should not matter at all. I said it should not factor on an individual level. If the NFL sees a need to punish any kind of sexual offense more harshly than do so on the basis of fully communicating that to your players. Just as baseball did when they went after steroids.

The judge literally said that word for word damn near.

Instead we are just reading today's insta and Facebook comments to determine how to handle one case. And not all of them going forward.

I very much doubt the NFL has to read Facebook to decide to take action. In Watson case the NFL likely knew how they wanted to proceed once the pattern of sexual misconduct became clear to them. Personally I feel the owner or owners should be able to part ways with an employee whenever they feel it’s in the best interest of the business period. It’s hard to understand why a POS like Watson have arguments created about “we need rules and procedures for these issues “ because really we don’t. He’s bad news and no trial is needed to understand the league would be better off terminating him permanently along with other players that have created problems of their own making. Ultimately players are temporary and college provides a slew of replacements yearly. Course the NFLPA has their duties and home town fans naturally hate the effect on their team but at the end only the lawyers come out ahead of the circus these cases bring.

 

[jarntt]

You're being extremely dramatic.

Although in your defense you are one of the few in the original Watson thread who has remained consistent. So at least there is that.

I've said multiple times now I have no real issue if they raised it to a year. I do take an issue with an indefinite suspension without criminal charges. The fact he settled shouldn't weigh in.

But I'm attempting to have a real dialog around his discipline practices (which until this case everyone thought Roger was dogshit).

And that's what the NFLPA will address if/when they push this

I've already said I don't think it would be appropriate to raise it too much above what the hearing officer recommended because it makes a mockery of the whole process (even though we all know it already is kind of a mockery). No one is defending Goodell's disciplinary process and he is constantly criticized for this but that is a different discussion. When you start throwing around "legal issues" and "taking it to court" it's no longer about perception or Goodell being consistent, it's about what is and isn't legal/allowed by the CBA and I don't see anything in the CBA telling me he cant do just that if he wants. His extra step of hiring someone else to hear the appeal seals the deal on this because the NFLPA can't say he himself overruled the suspension for some reason. Unless the union can prove he prejudiced that person handling the appeal in some way before or after choosing them.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

I very much doubt the NFL has to read Facebook to decide to take action. In Watson case the NFL likely knew how they wanted to proceed once the pattern of sexual misconduct became clear to them. Personally I feel the owner or owners should be able to part ways with an employee whenever they feel it’s in the best interest of the business period. It’s hard to understand why a POS like Watson have arguments created about “we need rules and procedures for these issues “ because really we don’t. He’s bad news and no trial is needed to understand the league would be better off terminating him permanently along with other players that have created problems of their own making. Ultimately players are temporary and college provides a slew of replacements yearly. Course the NFLPA has their duties and home town fans naturally hate the effect on their team but at the end only the lawyers come out ahead of the circus these cases bring.

Why didn't you feel this way immediately? Nothing has changed about this case in over a year. 3 other women who were never part of the case outside of civil court.

All of these facts were made public last April

 

[molsaniceman]

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he will not unilaterally rule in the Deshaun Watson case.​

Goodell has that power under the collective bargaining agreement, but the league will instead defer to new arbitrator Peter Harvey, the former attorney general of New Jersey. Harvey will have "full, final and complete disposition of dispute." Per CBS, the appeal will "address whether Harvey will increase the suspension length, establish a monetary fine and/or require Watson to get treatment and be professionally evaluated as determined by medical experts." The league badly wants to intervene in the process, but not to the point where Goodell can again be accused of acting outside the bounds of the sides' designated procedures. Nevermind the fact that one of those procedures is giving Goodell absolute power if he wants it. This saga will continue to drag on.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I never once said public opinion should not matter at all. I said it should not factor on an individual level. If the NFL sees a need to punish any kind of sexual offense more harshly than do so on the basis of fully communicating that to your players. Just as baseball did when they went after steroids.

The judge literally said that word for word damn near.

Instead we are just reading today's insta and Facebook comments to determine how to handle one case. And not all of them going forward.

I think the issue for most of this is - it really is unprecedented. As I've said numerous times on here, we are not dealing with the usual 1 or 2 victims/complaints. We are talking about 24 women who filed a civil suit against him. None of the previous suspensions had this kind of background.

Even if you just limit it to the 4 that were submitted by the NFL, that's double and triple the amount of previous cases brought forth (Rice, Zeke, Winston, Ben)... To continue to keep using phrases such as "punish offenses more harshly" as a defense is silly. It makes 100% sense that in a case like this, with more complaints/victims, the outcome should be harsher than those with less complaints/victims. That's common sense, no?

I mean, in generality - there doesn't really need to be a "rule" that says "Hey, guys - you can't r*pe women". or "Hey, guys - don't whack off in front of the massage therapist".

I'll agree that, as a rule of thumb, you don't want to rule by way of mob rule - listening to the people - but some topics are so sensitive, such as this, I think companies that want to take the pulse of their consumers when taking action is actually a quite prudent move. It protects their bottom line - and like I said, IMO, this is not a case that is really set on precedent because of all the information/those involved.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he will not unilaterally rule in the Deshaun Watson case.​

Goodell has that power under the collective bargaining agreement, but the league will instead defer to new arbitrator Peter Harvey, the former attorney general of New Jersey. Harvey will have "full, final and complete disposition of dispute." Per CBS, the appeal will "address whether Harvey will increase the suspension length, establish a monetary fine and/or require Watson to get treatment and be professionally evaluated as determined by medical experts." The league badly wants to intervene in the process, but not to the point where Goodell can again be accused of acting outside the bounds of the sides' designated procedures. Nevermind the fact that one of those procedures is giving Goodell absolute power if he wants it. This saga will continue to drag on.

Wise decision by the NFL imo. Even if it is a show effort.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Wise decision by the NFL imo. Even if it is a show effort.

Yeah, agreed. In no way could RG be the guy with the final say, even if he is actually the guy with the final say...lol

 

[Cincyfan78]

 

[Stakesarehigh]

I think the issue for most of this is - it really is unprecedented. As I've said numerous times on here, we are not dealing with the usual 1 or 2 victims/complaints. We are talking about 24 women who filed a civil suit against him. None of the previous suspensions had this kind of background.

Even if you just limit it to the 4 that were submitted by the NFL, that's double and triple the amount of previous cases brought forth (Rice, Zeke, Winston, Ben)... To continue to keep using phrases such as "punish offenses more harshly" as a defense is silly. It makes 100% sense that in a case like this, with more complaints/victims, the outcome should be harsher than those with less complaints/victims. That's common sense, no?

I mean, in generality - there doesn't really need to be a "rule" that says "Hey, guys - you can't r*pe women". or "Hey, guys - don't whack off in front of the massage therapist".

I'll agree that, as a rule of thumb, you don't want to rule by way of mob rule - listening to the people - but some topics are so sensitive, such as this, I think companies that want to take the pulse of their consumers when taking action is actually a quite prudent move. It protects their bottom line - and like I said, IMO, this is not a case that is really set on precedent because of all the information/those involved.

I like a lot of what you say here. And I agree the amount of women is a mitigating factor. I don't see it as an apples to apples comparison to DV though. But that's me.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Why didn't you feel this way immediately? Nothing has changed about this case in over a year. 3 other women who were never part of the case outside of civil court.

All of these facts were made public last April

What makes you think I didn't?

 

[dtgold88]

You're being extremely dramatic.

Although in your defense you are one of the few in the original Watson thread who has remained consistent. So at least there is that.

I've said multiple times now I have no real issue if they raised it to a year. I do take an issue with an indefinite suspension without criminal charges. The fact he settled shouldn't weigh in.

But I'm attempting to have a real dialog around his discipline practices (which until this case everyone thought Roger was dogshit).

And that's what the NFLPA will address if/when they push this

Haven't heard this as an option. Maybe you have. Obviously, when first handed down there was no reason for Watson to appeal (even though he has claimed he's innocent) since that just puts it in the NFL's hands. Now that it is in their hands anyway shouldn't he also appeal the penalty (though I guess too late now)?

 

[Stakesarehigh]

What makes you think I didn't?

That literally no one in the original thread was calling for him to be banned from the league.

Not one person.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

I mean hell...the board was pretty unanimous on 8 games or so even just a few months ago.

 

[rmilia1]

So correct me if I'm wrong here...

Watson had a chance to accept a settlement deal from the NFL of 12-games and around a $10 million fine (his salary for 2021) - He declined and now with this appeal, he'll likely serve a lot more than those 6 games.

Ain't no F'n way Deshaun wants this to go before a federal court. Then we'll see a lot more dirty laundry being aired out.

The way this whole thing has unfolded that's only 2 options

1. Watson actually is completely innocent and he's not willing to admit wrong doing by accepting a suspension

Or

2. The dude is a sociopath

 

[HaroldSeattle]

That literally no one in the original thread was calling for him to be banned from the league.

Not one person.

I've always thought the NFL or any other business should have the right to fire someone if they feel it's in their interest, I'm sure plenty agree with that. Doesn't mean they need to post ban so and so from the league from the get go or at all for that matter. Heck their have been lots of players I thought the NFL be better off without, but I don't always post it.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I mean hell...the board was pretty unanimous on 8 games or so even just a few months ago.

No it wasn't.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

The way this whole thing has unfolded that's only 2 options

1. Watson actually is completely innocent and he's not willing to admit wrong doing by accepting a suspension

Or

2. The dude is a sociopath

I'll take he's a sociopath for a thousand Alex.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I like a lot of what you say here. And I agree the amount of women is a mitigating factor. I don't see it as an apples to apples comparison to DV though. But that's me.

I'll agree that it likely doesn't rise to the role of DV, but the arbiter did say that the CBA was broken with his actions - taking that, and then considering the amount of women involved, and using the past as a guide - that is where I come in at 12-17 games.

But, I think that's when you know you are reaching the middle ground - when both sides start to understand each others side, and move towards an agreement, even if not 100%.