Judge Recommends Suspension of 6 Games for Deshaun Watson

[dtgold88]

Browns fans only.

NO AGENDAS ALLOWED

Who are the browns fans here you think are shocked about what has taken place so far?

will ya name them or be a question coward?

 

[Cincyfan78]

So it's that scumbag's Watson's fault that the league went against the suspension suggestion of the very person they hired to take care of this matter?

Watson should rightfully be blamed for his actions. But it's not his fault the league didn't like the suspension recommendation of the very person they hired in the first place.

I mean - yes...and no, right?

It's not like the NFL is going against the rules of the CBA - if Watson had been suspended for a full year by the arbiter, do you not think he would have also appealed? It's his right...just like it is the NFL. And, FWIW - I think the NFL has solid reasoning. The arbiter ruled all 4 submissions as 1 act. I think that is erroneous, IMO - and the NFL also thinks that is erroneous. They are 4 acts, completed separately, though the span of 17 months (or however much time between those 4). I mean, in no court case anywhere are you able to commit 4 crimes, get charged with 4 crimes, and then have all 4 crimes count as 1 because you only got caught after the last one was committed. Those are 4 counts each. (now if you wanted to say they reduce those crimes in a plea, I'd agree - but Watson would have to had agree to some kind of plea, which he didn't, which means he is either on the hook for all 4 crimes, or he's innocent of all 4 crimes. The arbiter said he was guilty of breaking the CBA - so he's guilty The issue at hand is how the arbiter lumped 4 actions as 1).

I think the more poignant thought is that if Watson wasn't such a shitbag - there wouldn't have been anything for the NFL to appeal because he wouldn't have violated those women. Anything that has occurred after those acts is a direct result of Watson's actions.

 

[dtgold88]

Ultimately it was a bad ruling by the judge and the league has processes in place to rectify it

Yes I'm sure ideally they would've wanted to go with her ruling but they simply couldn't once they saw what it was

You can't base a ruling off prior precedent when there is no prior precedent for a case like this

If Watson had 1 or even 2 accusers then precedent applies. When he has 25ish it doesn't. Because there is no precedent for that. Even if you consider the judge only heard from 4 of them its still unprecedented

She appears to have considered all these women as one huge monolith as opposed to unique and separate individuals. Which is wrong.

So the league is going to use the fall safe they have at their disposal

Agree with some of this but she kind of said if it was just one the Winston incident is the closest to this case and he got 3 games. she raised it to 6.

 

[rmilia1]

Agree with some of this but she kind of said if it was just one the Winston incident is the closest to this case and he got 3 games. she raised it to 6.

Yeah but Winston's case was not really similar to Watsons. Which is the point.

 

[dtgold88]

PUT THIS IN 10 INCH LETTER.

I agree with him....look how many thought I lied even though I showed I was factually correct and they wont admit they were wrong.

Glad he pointed that out.

Hell, you probably still think the Browns were the ones who signed Watson and agreed to pay him only 690K this season.

 

[dtgold88]

Yeah but Winston's case was not really similar to Watsons. Which is the point.

I mean, the one who does this for a living thought it was close. 1 to 1 could argue it was the most similar but, sure, she had 4 cases to look at.

To be fair, I don't know all the details of the Winston case (only that he groped a driver?). Likely she did though.

 

[rmilia1]

I mean, the one who does this for a living thought it was close. 1 to 1 could argue it was the most similar but, sure, she had 4 cases to look at.

To be fair, I don't know all the details of the Winston case (only that he groped a driver?). Likely she did though.

Yes 1 on 1 you could argue it was close ( intent aside ) but it's not 1 on 1

It's 25 on 1 or 4 on 1


If i get drunk and get into a fight and kill a guy that's bad no doubt. If you plan out 25 separate murdersv and execute all of them that's worse. Yes people are still dead on both cases but they're not the samev and wouldn't be judged the same

That's ostensibly the same thing here. Just substitute being a pervy douche for killing people lol

 

[dtgold88]

Yes 1 on 1 you could argue it was close ( intent aside ) but it's not 1 on 1

It's 25 on 1 or 4 on 1


If i get drunk and get into a fight and kill a guy that's bad no doubt. If you plan out 25 separate murdersv and execute all of them that's worse. Yes people are still dead on both cases but they're not the samev and wouldn't be judged the same

That's ostensibly the same thing here. Just substitute being a pervy douche for killing people lol

It's not the same as you don't know all the details of the 4 cases (or the 1 case with Winston).

as someone else has said it's funny how so many here with so little info think they know more than a formal federal judge with all the info.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

So it's that scumbag's Watson's fault that the league went against the suspension suggestion of the very person they hired to take care of this matter?

Watson should rightfully be blamed for his actions. But it's not his fault the league didn't like the suspension recommendation of the very person they hired in the first place.

If it wasn't for Watson's action it would never reached an arbitrator.

Again it's not like we haven't seen Goodell do this before.

 

[Wamu]

I mean - yes...and no, right?

It's not like the NFL is going against the rules of the CBA - if Watson had been suspended for a full year by the arbiter, do you not think he would have also appealed? It's his right...just like it is the NFL. And, FWIW - I think the NFL has solid reasoning. The arbiter ruled all 4 submissions as 1 act. I think that is erroneous, IMO - and the NFL also thinks that is erroneous. They are 4 acts, completed separately, though the span of 17 months (or however much time between those 4). I mean, in no court case anywhere are you able to commit 4 crimes, get charged with 4 crimes, and then have all 4 crimes count as 1 because you only got caught after the last one was committed. Those are 4 counts each. (now if you wanted to say they reduce those crimes in a plea, I'd agree - but Watson would have to had agree to some kind of plea, which he didn't, which means he is either on the hook for all 4 crimes, or he's innocent of all 4 crimes. The arbiter said he was guilty of breaking the CBA - so he's guilty The issue at hand is how the arbiter lumped 4 actions as 1).

I think the more poignant thought is that if Watson wasn't such a shitbag - there wouldn't have been anything for the NFL to appeal because he wouldn't have violated those women. Anything that has occurred after those acts is a direct result of Watson's actions.

I don't see how anyone other than the league can be blamed for the league itself going against the ruling of the person they hired to take care of this.

Personally I think only a 6 game suspension's a slap in the face to every women he's paid off. So I fully understand why the league went against the original suspension suggestion.

But now the league has put in place the person they want, meaning he'll rule on this the way they want him to. So his "decision" isn't his at all. He's being told how to rule on this. Basically he's a puppet.

 

[rmilia1]

It's not the same as you don't know all the details of the 4 cases (or the 1 case with Winston).

as someone else has said it's funny how so many here with so little info think they know more than a formal federal judge with all the info.

Well we know Winston didn't plan his 1 accusation. And we know Watson did plan all of his. It's started as such in both rulings. And intent matters

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Alienated the guy you rip constantly when it suits you?

Yep.....ya gotta love this forum.

Whether I like or hate the guy has ZERO reference to your FO screw ups.

Nice try at the spin though. You do you and don't let anyone tell you different.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I don't see how anyone other than the league can be blamed for the league itself going against the ruling of the person they hired to take care of this.

Personally I think only a 6 game suspension's a slap in the face to every women he's paid off. So I fully understand why the league went against the original suspension suggestion.

But now the league has put in place the person they want, meaning he'll rule on this the way they want him to. So his "decision" isn't his at all. He's being told how to rule on this. Basically he's a puppet.

Again - I get that, but there is also a process to appeal. It's not like they are making up the rules as they go along. The ability to appeal is available to both Watson and the league. Either is free to use that language to, basically, get a second opinion on the matter.

Now, if the next person rules and someone wants to go beyond that, outside of the CBA process, then I'd agree 100% that is their fault...but currently, I don't agree that the "blame" here is on the NFL (or on Watson if it were reversed) simply because they are following the rules that were agreed upon by both sides prior to this incident ever occurring.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Yes 1 on 1 you could argue it was close ( intent aside ) but it's not 1 on 1

It's 25 on 1 or 4 on 1


If i get drunk and get into a fight and kill a guy that's bad no doubt. If you plan out 25 separate murdersv and execute all of them that's worse. Yes people are still dead on both cases but they're not the samev and wouldn't be judged the same

That's ostensibly the same thing here. Just substitute being a pervy douche for killing people lol

dt logic= yeah but if you were is a state that has capital punishment you would only be executed once not 25x
~dt

 

[dtgold88]

Whether I like or hate the guy has ZERO reference to your FO screw ups.

Nice try at the spin though. You do you and don't let anyone tell you different.

In this case it kind of does. The FO had a pretty good QB they had a chance to acquire to replace the at the time current QB. They made the move since QB is an important position.

FO screw ups, eh? other than the Watson deal can you name others or will you be asking me to name their good moves to prove they had other screw ups?

 

[futballiscool]

Agree with some of this but she kind of said if it was just one the Winston incident is the closest to this case and he got 3 games. she raised it to 6.

To me a big difference with Winston is he was accused of r*pe in college. With Watson he's had absolutely no off the field issues prior to this controversy.
If they want to make a rule in the next CBA that any sexual misconduct leads to an automatic year suspension that's fair but to discipline a player that way without warning isn't

 

[dtgold88]

dt logic= yeah but if you were is a state that has capital punishment you would only be executed once not 25x
~dt

dt logic was factual in this case. Do you still disagree, Question Coward?

What was the amount the Browns agreed to pay Watson when they signed him to his new deal in year 1 base
a) 1.035 mil
b) 690k
c) tater salad

 

[NWPATSFAN]

dt logic was factual in this case. Do you still disagree, Question Coward?

What was the amount the Browns agreed to pay Watson when they signed him to his new deal in year 1 base
a) 1.035 mil
b) 690k
c) tater salad

That's not what is in question with your logic, at this moment.

Try to keep up

This is a spin free zone

 

[jarntt]

I've seen some dumb things to argue over but this is up there.

It's clear the way cleveland structured the deal was a huge selling point for Deshaun. Arguing over the details seems pointless.

On the bright side it seems we will have a year to argue this out some more since he will be sitting unless he challenges the ruling.

I think I have said this before but just in case I haven't, here's where I contradict myself on my thoughts of what the suspension for Watson should be. Or maybe I don't

I totally feel he deserves a year minimum and even an indefinite suspension would be warranted because he is a predator AND he shows no remorse AND completely lacks any semblance of accountability or honesty or admission of guilt in any way. I think the initial suspension should have been more than 6 games and even a year plus wouldn't have been inappropriate to me. BUT, that being said, I think when you are the league and you put a procedure in place and part of that procedure includes a hearing officer chosen by both sides to come up with a fair penalty it just doesn't look right to go from her determination of 6 games to a year plus. We all know the entire disciplinary process is a complete sham, but if you are the league and you indeed do that, you completely remove any ability to pretend it is anything but a kangaroo court. I think increasing the suspension to 10 or maybe even 12 games would still provide the illusion of a fair disciplinary process, but I just think going to a year plus is too drastically different than what the supposedly impartial hearing officer determined to be a fair penalty. Now Roger himself not being the one to hear the appeal helps, but not that much IMO

 

[PDay8810]

Question coward and liar

Romper Room

Aim low sheriff, their riding shetlands.