Judge Recommends Suspension of 6 Games for Deshaun Watson

[Cincyfan78]

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

And here is where I'll differ, as I've gone back and forth with Wamu as well...

The appeal process is spelled out in the CBA - it's accounted for. Taking advantage of something that both sides have agreed upon isn't bad thing. If Watson had been suspended indefinitely, he likely would have appealed. That would have been his right.

Where I'd say the issue comes in is if one side goes through the outlined process (arbiter, then appeals) and still doesn't like what happens - they then decide to try and go outside the CBA and sue/file a suit. Then, at that point, that is where I would agree with your sentiment. However, at the moment, it's hard for me to get too riled up about the NFL appealing since it's a part of a mutually agreed upon action outlined in the CBA that is offered to either side.

 

[jarntt]

And here is where I'll differ, as I've gone back and forth with Wamu as well...

The appeal process is spelled out in the CBA - it's accounted for. Taking advantage of something that both sides have agreed upon isn't bad thing. If Watson had been suspended indefinitely, he likely would have appealed. That would have been his right.

Where I'd say the issue comes in is if one side goes through the outlined process (arbiter, then appeals) and still doesn't like what happens - they then decide to try and go outside the CBA and sue/file a suit. Then, at that point, that is where I would agree with your sentiment. However, at the moment, it's hard for me to get too riled up about the NFL appealing since it's a part of a mutually agreed upon action outlined in the CBA that is offered to either side.

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying as stating they are violating the CBA. I am not and they are not. What I am saying is that the disciplinary process as currently included in the CBA is an absolute sham. Goodell is still judge, jury and executioner. He literally could have received the hearing officers recommendation, appealed it, and then stated that the suspension length will instead be a year (more?) in 5 minutes. If they want to try and pretend this isn't absolutely the case they should at least pretend to take the hearing officers recommendation into account when completely ignoring it.

 

[molsaniceman]

its simple folks Goodell will keep going till he gets the suspension and fine he wants He did the same thing with Brady

May 11: The NFL announced that Tom Brady has been suspended without pay for four games for violating the NFL policy on the integrity of the game. This news comes less than a week after independent investigator Ted Wells found that it was "more probable than not" that Brady was "at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities" regarding the deflation of Patriots game balls used in the AFC Championship Game against the Colts.

May 14: The NFLPA filed an appeal of Tom Brady's four-game suspension on his behalf.

July 28: Commissioner Roger Goodell upholds Tom Brady's four-game suspension. In ruling, Goodell stated that Brady instructed his assistant to destroy the cellphone that he had been using since early November 2014, a period that included the AFC Championship game and the initial weeks of the subsequent investigation. Brady instructed his assistant to destroy the phone the very day he was interviewed by Ted Wells.

Aug. 12:Tom Brady and Commissioner Roger Goodell meet in court, with Judge Richard M. Berman questioning the lawyers from both sides. Berman urges the two to settle and sets another court date for Aug. 19.

Sept. 3:Tom Brady's four-game suspension is nullified by Judge Richard M. Berman. Brady is now eligible to play for the Patriots in Week 1. One of Berman's key points is that Brady did not receive the proper advance notice to be disciplined by the NFL and information of the kind of penalties he could receive.
Commissioner Roger Goodell announces in a statement that the league has appealed the ruling in order to uphold the collectively bargained responsibility to protect the integrity of the game. NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reports the league will not seek a stay to keep Brady off the field under its appeal.

April 25: The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reverses Berman's decision on a 2-1 ruling that reinstates Brady's four-game suspension.

July 15: Brady announces via his Facebook page that he has "made the difficult decision to longer proceed with the legal process." Brady will accept his four-game suspension and be eligible to return to the field against the Cleveland Browns on Oct. 9.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying as stating they are violating the CBA. I am not and they are not. What I am saying is that the disciplinary process as currently included in the CBA is an absolute sham. Goodell is still judge, jury and executioner. He literally could have received the hearing officers recommendation, appealed it, and then stated that the suspension length will instead be a year (more?) in 5 minutes. If they want to try and pretend this isn't absolutely the case they should at least pretend to take the hearing officers recommendation into account when completely ignoring it.

Gotcha - and that I do agree with. The fact that the NFLPA agreed to this setup is head scratching, to say the least.

The current outline is fine, as far as you should submit to arbiter - and then have an appeals - but in no way should either side have been in control of the appeals process after the initial arbiter ruled.

I agree, it's a sham set up, but I'll also say that it's hard to feel too bad since the NFLPA agreed to it.

 

[molsaniceman]

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying as stating they are violating the CBA. I am not and they are not. What I am saying is that the disciplinary process as currently included in the CBA is an absolute sham. Goodell is still judge, jury and executioner. He literally could have received the hearing officers recommendation, appealed it, and then stated that the suspension length will instead be a year (more?) in 5 minutes. If they want to try and pretend this isn't absolutely the case they should at least pretend to take the hearing officers recommendation into account when completely ignoring it.

he court stated its ruling was more about upholding the power of the CBA and ensuring that Goodell did not overstep his written authority. Several times in the decision, the appeals court noted that their scope was fairly limited, and zeroed in on a few basic principles of the CBA.
"The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumscribed and highly deferential -- indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second-guess the arbitrator's procedural rulings.
"Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act."

remember robinson and the new judge are ex judges doing something for the NFL not the law

 

[dtgold88]

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

Try to keep up

This is a spin free zone

Once again, Question Coward, here was the question that spooked you (do you need more options or would you prefer to make it true/false)?

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

 

[dtgold88]

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

agree......though I think I'd prefer a year to 12 games.

I'd only add I do wonder how much accountability or admission of guilt was wise for him to show with all those civil cases pending.

 

[wilwhite]

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.

One incident versus four. She gave Watson a break, presumably because Winston had previously been warned and had Watson had not.

Room for expanding the penalty can be cases beyond those four, or especially for being premeditated. Winston doesn't call ubder drivers so he can grope them.

 

[dtgold88]

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying as stating they are violating the CBA. I am not and they are not. What I am saying is that the disciplinary process as currently included in the CBA is an absolute sham. Goodell is still judge, jury and executioner. He literally could have received the hearing officers recommendation, appealed it, and then stated that the suspension length will instead be a year (more?) in 5 minutes. If they want to try and pretend this isn't absolutely the case they should at least pretend to take the hearing officers recommendation into account when completely ignoring it.

Agree with this as well but would only add it's possible Rog doesn't care as much as he lets on and only wants the public to think he cares. Why he could still leave it alone or maybe just add a couple games (or the new appeals officer could) and Rog can just say was out of his hands.

But, sure, if he's hellbent on it being a year hard to imagine he wont make it a year.

 

[PDay8810]

Agree with this as well but would only add it's possible Rog doesn't care as much as he lets on and only wants the public to think he cares.

Or

Maybe he has issues with blacks.
This also is "possible"

My God you're a SPACE CADET

 

[dtgold88]

Or

Maybe he has issues with blacks.
This also is "possible"

My God you're a SPACE CADET

sure because saying he might be a racist is the same as saying he may only care about public perception.

yep, cue another oh, the irony.

 

[PDay8810]

sure because saying he might be a racist is the same as saying he may only care about public perception.

Are you saying it's not possible.

 

[dtgold88]

Are you saying it's not possible.

It's possible.....but also possible he hates gays, women and sports forum kids who base their comments on poster and not post

 

[PDay8810]

That's my point spinner. Most everything is within the rim of possibilities.

Now read this next part slowly..maybe read it three, four times.

The comments are based on the posts and the posters agenda is the reason for such comments

 

[dtgold88]

That's my point spinner. Most everything is within the rim of possibilities.

Now read this next part slowly..maybe read it three, four times.

The comments are based on the posts and the posters agenda is the reason for such comments

Not sure it's the same likelihood he's making decisions based on being a racist as it would be based on public perception.

But you do you, Post based on Poster Boy

 

[PDay8810]

Not sure it's the same likelihood he's making decisions based on being a racist as it would be based on public perception.

But you do you, Post based on Poster Boy

So you are wrong. It is possible.

 

[dtgold88]

So you are wrong. It is possible.

In post 673 I said it was possible so not sure how I was wrong.

Keep up, kid.

 

[PDay8810]

Glad I could help you here.

It was a space cadet point.

 

[fastforward]

its simple folks Goodell will keep going till he gets the suspension and fine he wants He did the same thing with Brady

May 11: The NFL announced that Tom Brady has been suspended without pay for four games for violating the NFL policy on the integrity of the game. This news comes less than a week after independent investigator Ted Wells found that it was "more probable than not" that Brady was "at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities" regarding the deflation of Patriots game balls used in the AFC Championship Game against the Colts.

May 14: The NFLPA filed an appeal of Tom Brady's four-game suspension on his behalf.

July 28: Commissioner Roger Goodell upholds Tom Brady's four-game suspension. In ruling, Goodell stated that Brady instructed his assistant to destroy the cellphone that he had been using since early November 2014, a period that included the AFC Championship game and the initial weeks of the subsequent investigation. Brady instructed his assistant to destroy the phone the very day he was interviewed by Ted Wells.

Aug. 12:Tom Brady and Commissioner Roger Goodell meet in court, with Judge Richard M. Berman questioning the lawyers from both sides. Berman urges the two to settle and sets another court date for Aug. 19.

Sept. 3:Tom Brady's four-game suspension is nullified by Judge Richard M. Berman. Brady is now eligible to play for the Patriots in Week 1. One of Berman's key points is that Brady did not receive the proper advance notice to be disciplined by the NFL and information of the kind of penalties he could receive.
Commissioner Roger Goodell announces in a statement that the league has appealed the ruling in order to uphold the collectively bargained responsibility to protect the integrity of the game. NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reports the league will not seek a stay to keep Brady off the field under its appeal.

April 25: The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reverses Berman's decision on a 2-1 ruling that reinstates Brady's four-game suspension.

July 15: Brady announces via his Facebook page that he has "made the difficult decision to longer proceed with the legal process." Brady will accept his four-game suspension and be eligible to return to the field against the Cleveland Browns on Oct. 9.

3 details to add:
1) The NFL can't appeal the 2nd adjudicator's punishment upwards, (although it can still be appealed downwards). Thus: if the 2nd adjudicator in the Watson case decides on 8 games the NFL can't increase that punishment.
2) Appealing the punishment allowed Brady to delay the punishment from 1 season, (where he had a comparatively high salary), to the following season, (where the team reduced Brady's salary to a league minimum $1M and 4 games meant a loss of $250K).
3) Brady wasn't fined for avoiding/minimising his punishment.

 

[ElPatron1]

Seems like a lot of BS imo

Remember that not 1 of these 24 woman went to the police. Odd huh how it flips when money is on the line. Why should he be suspended for non violent civil matter? What other non violent non criminal civil matters have the NFL suspended people for?

 

[NWPATSFAN]

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

This is why our judicial system employs a jury.

Hmmmmm by the opinions here Watson would be in jail for a long time.

Oh and she's a former judge not a formal nor active judge. Also this was her first delve into an NFL high profile case.

Spin away Spinster-matic.