NBA OFF TOPIC THREAD

[fightinfunbags]

It's ironic for your ability to hammer a single point 30-40 times. I wouldn't call someone I don't know and have never met autistic. But you do you.

I’ve interacted with you for years and the assessment is on the money. I will grant that you’re likely high functioning though so you’ve got that going for you.

 

[DJ Fieri]

LMAO at this guy.

 

[dtgold88]

Am I though? Telling a former judge how to do her job? She’s working from an assumption of precedent. She has no right to do so. She is essentially dictating to the NFL that they aren’t allowed to evolve with the times and create more harsh penalties for sexual assault. She doesn’t possess that power. She stated that the NFL met their burden. They came correct and they established that Watson was guilty of violating their code of conduct. She then leaned on past rulings essentially telling the NFL they are governed by their past. That’s out of her purview.

Yes, you are.....she heard all the arguments and facts and came to her conclusion. something she has been paid to do for a living as a judge. You had a preconceived notion of the facts and believe what you want and dismiss what you want and would make your "ruling" out of emotion like a child.

 

[dtgold88]

I’ve interacted with you for years and the assessment is on the money. I will grant that you’re likely high functioning though so you’ve got that going for you.

again...oh, the irony.

 

[fightinfunbags]

LMAO at this guy.
View attachment 303951

Haha! That’s gotta be a fake quote.

 

[fightinfunbags]

Yes, you are.....she heard all the arguments and facts and came to her conclusion. something she has been paid to do for a living as a judge. You had a preconceived notion of the facts and believe what you want and dismiss what you want and would make your "ruling" out of emotion like a child.

“Facts” are on my side in this case as both I and the NFL believe that Watson violated their code of conduct. Robinson agreed with me and the NFL. The “facts” have little to do with what I’ve actually criticized.

Objection over ruled. Take another swing Rain Man…uh oh…fart.

 

[fightinfunbags]

again...oh, the irony.

Definitely definitely counting cards with Charlie Babbit.

 

[DJ Fieri]

Haha! That’s gotta be a fake quote.

LOL

 

[trojanfan12]

Telling a former judge how to do her job?

She’s working from an assumption of precedent. She has no right to do so. She is essentially dictating to the NFL that they aren’t allowed to evolve with the times and create more harsh penalties for sexual assault. She doesn’t possess that power. She stated that the NFL met their burden. They came correct and they established that Watson was guilty of violating their code of conduct. She then leaned on past rulings essentially telling the NFL they are governed by their past. That’s out of her purview.

lol

Oh, and that's not what she did.

 

[fightinfunbags]

lol

Oh, and that's not what she did.

Sure it is.

 

[fightinfunbags]

 

[trojanfan12]

Sure it is.

Incorrect. The NFL had set a precedent of light punishment for these kinds of issues and suddenly decided they were going to have far harsher penalties without notifying the players, etc.

She told them they can't do that.

What they can do now, is they can define it in their league rules (which they also hadn't done) and then let everyone know what those punishments will be going forward.

The NFL had tried to set it up so that they could change their definition and punishment on a whim. She told them that they can't do that. The suspension she handed down was longer than the precedent the NFL had set.

If you need to be angry about this, be angry at the NFL...they set the precedent by not taking these kinds of issues seriously. She basically told them to get their shit together and start doing things the right way.

In short, she didn't tell them they can't ''evolve''...she told them they had to do it the right way.

 

[Shanemansj13]

LMAO at this guy.
View attachment 303951

Probably another fake quote, yet you keep posting these

 

[fightinfunbags]

Incorrect. The NFL had set a precedent of light punishment for these kinds of issues and suddenly decided they were going to have far harsher penalties without notifying the players, etc.

She told them they can't do that.

What they can do now, is they can define it in their league rules (which they also hadn't done) and then let everyone know what those punishments will be going forward.

The NFL had tried to set it up so that they could change their definition and punishment on a whim. She told them that they can't do that. The suspension she handed down was longer than the precedent the NFL had set.

If you need to be angry about this, be angry at the NFL...they set the precedent by not taking these kinds of issues seriously. She basically told them to get their shit together and start doing things the right way.

I’m not “angry”. I’m bothered by what was done by Watson and no other figure in this whole ordeal. Much of what you said flushes with what I said, each with our own spin on things. I would imagine there’s language in the collective bargaining agreement that says that the NFL has to do more than provide a code of conduct. They must be obligated to inform the players union that they were going to assess more strict penalties. Is that what happened here? That would be the only way I can think of where the NFL is obligated to follow precedent. Does anyone know what conditions demand a notification of a change?

 

[DJ Fieri]

Probably another fake quote, yet you keep posting these

Like your fake shit from Legion Hoops?

LOL.

 

[trojanfan12]

I’m not “angry”. I’m bothered by what was done by Watson and no other figure in this whole ordeal. Much of what you said flushes with what I said, each with our own spin on things. I would imagine there’s language in the collective bargaining agreement that says that the NFL has to do more than provide a code of conduct. They must be obligated to inform the players union that they were going to assess more strict penalties. Is that what happened here? That would be the only way I can think of where the NFL is obligated to follow precedent. Does anyone know what conditions demand a notification of a change?

No, it's not what happened. The NFL decided that with this case, they were going to arbitrarily make the punishment far harsher than it has ever been. Likely because people were louder about it and they wanted to look strong. The 3rd party also has to follow precedent in this situation. She even had to accept the NFL's definition of sexual assault which they made up just before the hearing because they didn't have one.

If they had done that, Watson likely takes them to Federal Court where he likely gets a restraining order on the suspension which would make him eligible to play from game 1. That trial likely takes a year or more with there being a strong chance the NFL loses and then no suspension is served.

That is also why it seems unlikely that the NFL will add to the suspension.

The way they fix it is by taking the quote that I mentioned that Dan Patrick suggested will likely happen and adding something like...

''This kind of behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. We will be working with the NFLPA to come up with penalties that reflect the seriousness of these kinds of issues''.

Then of course, they would need to actually do it.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Am I though? Telling a former judge how to do her job? She’s working from an assumption of precedent. She has no right to do so. She is essentially dictating to the NFL that they aren’t allowed to evolve with the times and create more harsh penalties for sexual assault. She doesn’t possess that power. She stated that the NFL met their burden. They came correct and they established that Watson was guilty of violating their code of conduct. She then leaned on past rulings essentially telling the NFL they are governed by their past. That’s out of her purview.

again- read the opinion

she is not saying they cant evolve.

she is saying they cant evolve out of nowhere. That you have to actually have notice. Maybe her biggest quote is "the nfl is forward facinng but not forward thinking".

And again- "found he violated the code of conduct"- who sets the code of conduct? the NFL unilaterally- and again- its not even anywhere in a rulebook etc---- they basically made up their own definitions during the proceeding- the judge said she thought the "scope" of their definition was not really a good one- but that she was bound by it anyway.

now- I do not expect you to be able to parse what is essentially a judicial opinion- though a VERY easy to read judicial opinion- (I have read hundreds- maybe thousands) - but again- I am happy to educate.

 

[WiggyRuss]

No, it's not what happened. The NFL decided that with this case, they were going to arbitrarily make the punishment far harsher than it has ever been. Likely because people were louder about it and they wanted to look strong. The 3rd party also has to follow precedent in this situation. She even had to accept the NFL's definition of sexual assault which they made up just before the hearing because they didn't have one.

If they had done that, Watson likely takes them to Federal Court where he likely gets a restraining order on the suspension which would make him eligible to play from game 1. That trial likely takes a year or more with there being a strong chance the NFL loses and then no suspension is served.

That is also why it seems unlikely that the NFL will add to the suspension.

The way they fix it is by taking the quote that I mentioned that Dan Patrick suggested will likely happen and adding something like...

''This kind of behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. We will be working with the NFLPA to come up with penalties that reflect the seriousness of these kinds of issues''.

Then of course, they would need to actually do it.

and the judge even said--- they are perfectly welcome to institute harsher penalties then they ever have before- as long as its noticed. They just cant fly by the seat of their pants. You cant all of a sudden sentence someone to prison for a year for stealing a toothbrush without it being noticed.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Does anyone know what conditions demand a notification of a change?

what the opinion basically said is you cannot out of the blue drastically increase penalties without notice. ESPECIALLY when what is proscribed conduct is not even put down in writing anywhere and you just make up the definitions at a hearing.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Like your fake shit from Legion Hoops?

LOL.

900K is more reliable than your google images. Not sure if you are just that dumb or trolling. Hard to tell at this point