jarntt
Well-Known Member
Since when is a criminal conviction required for an NFL suspension?If this was a Cosby situation where he was actually convicted I would bring up the number as valid but nothing was deemed criminal in this situation
Since when is a criminal conviction required for an NFL suspension?If this was a Cosby situation where he was actually convicted I would bring up the number as valid but nothing was deemed criminal in this situation
dont let facts confuse them and yes the owners can be suspendedKraft, nor Jones were accused by any victims.
Kraft had a paid agreement, Jones had pictures that looked like he was partying with strippers.
Is Goddell covered under the CBA?
It's complete hypocrisy to have players under a moral code that the owners don't have to follow themselves
Yep. If I understood correctly - ANY suspension levied that is appealed by the NFL is at the sole discretion of Roger Goodell....he has the final authority to levy and/all punishment at that time - and that is exactly how it is spelled out in the CBA - so all the bluster and huffing about the NFLPA, Watson, and Cleveland threatening to sue the NFL/RG is just that...bluster. He is following the CBA they all agreed to as he wishes.yep they made goodel judge/jury/executioner
This has merit, but I'd think the NFL could look at each accuser as a separate incident, hence the call for an indefinite suspension.I'm pretty sure according to the CBA 6 games is the max unless he has prior incidents or suspensions.
Another bad correlation. A conviction has never been required for a suspension. See Big Ben years ago, and others. The NFL has always had greater leeway in how it handles its players when compared to the actual legal system.If this was a Cosby situation where he was actually convicted I would bring up the number as valid but nothing was deemed criminal in this situation
Are you new to the workforce? Do you know what a CBA is?Is Goddell covered under the CBA?
It's complete hypocrisy to have players under a moral code that the owners don't have to follow themselves
Since when is a criminal conviction required for an NFL suspension?
So you think it's over?He's been suspended.
Another bad correlation. A conviction has never been required for a suspension. See Big Ben years ago, and others. The NFL has always had greater leeway in how it handles its players when compared to the actual legal system.
It's more of a civil system than a criminal system. Just like you can not be convicted of a crime, and still be held civilly responsible.
Agreed. I think you have to find the sweet spot. I mean, this isn't 1-2 or even 4 or 5...this was 26. So, the "first time" incident, IMO, should go right out the window. What it really means is how quickly can you "find" a player doing something wrong...which isn't something I think anyone wants to get into. Indefinite would have likely been overkill - I think there needed to be a final resolution to his playing/suspension status.This has merit, but I'd think the NFL could look at each accuser as a separate incident, hence the call for an indefinite suspension.
FWIW, I wouldn't think indefinite is right.
So you think it's over?
2.Ben had already been accused of assault and then had a second accusation. His suspension was then set at 6 games and then reduced to 4.
If you don't think these are valid examples what do you consider as a precedent and a fair suspension
theres still 1 woman who hasnt settled yet so not ova yetAgreed. I think you have to find the sweet spot. I mean, this isn't 1-2 or even 4 or 5...this was 26. So, the "first time" incident, IMO, should go right out the window. What it really means is how quickly can you "find" a player doing something wrong...which isn't something I think anyone wants to get into. Indefinite would have likely been overkill - I think there needed to be a final resolution to his playing/suspension status.
The issue they could have now is - the women involved still have a full year (give or take) to file a complaint since the statute of limitation is 2 years from incident. So, if the last known incident was in January of '21 (or whatever) there could still be someone in November or December that decides to file...then what happens? How is that treated? Still as the first incident? What if 5 more file? 10? We know at least 60 massages were given...
That is one of the reasons I thought a year suspension was probably the best outcome. It would have not only shown the NFL was serious about the charges, just by the sheer volume of complaints alone, but also would have allowed for Watson to remain away from the NFL until the statute of limitations ran out - also protecting themselves from any future hassles that more charges would bring.
plus ben was 12 years ago and alot has changed since then2.
26 - and the statute of limitations has not yet run out on any of the other women who have not yet filed...
Not only that, but the world has changed a TON in terms of women's rights and protections just in the 20 years alone since that has happened.
These are not the same. If you think they are...I just don't know what to say. They're not.
2.
26 - and the statute of limitations has not yet run out on any of the other women who have not yet filed...
Not only that, but the world has changed a TON in terms of women's rights and protections just in the 20 years alone since that has happened.
These are not the same. If you think they are...I just don't know what to say. They're not.
Castration.....Ben was accused of actual r*pe. Watson was accused of agreesively soliciting sexual favors. We don't know the exact nature of all 26 incidents.
Again, what punishment do you recommend for a player with no prior history of misconduct where no criminal charges were filed