Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

[Haloti92]

Here we go again. Vilma already squawking.


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/ey...ty-suspensions



Edit: Suppose this is in the wrong forum, my apologies.

[SouthSide]

Wow....this is huge, and now Goodell look s a tad less mighty.

So what does this do for the Saints roster? I am sure they made their cuts to get to 53 players with these suspensions in mind.

[middleriverterp]

Finally, Goodell got taken down a peg. Unfortunately, the players had the chance to fight the redheaded spokesape but couldn't stay strong during the lockout and came back with their tails between their legs. How can the guy be judge, jury and executioner?

[HoustonRaven]

Finally, Goodell got taken down a peg. Unfortunately, the players had the chance to fight the redheaded spokesape but couldn't stay strong during the lockout and came back with their tails between their legs. How can the guy be judge, jury and executioner?

Because that's what the players agreed to in the last CBA.

And this does not knock him down a peg at all. The decision gets sent back to Goodell for a new punishment.

[middleriverterp]

That's what I was alluding to. They players have no one to blame but themselves, but it is a lot of power for just one man.

[Haloti92]

It knocks Goodell down a little bit, in that he set out the punishments for a severe violation (that many thought were too stiff even for that violation), and now the violation has been massively downgraded to a mere "pay for performance" issue. It is going to be extremely hard to punish the players anywhere near as severely now that the violations they are being punished for are so much less serious.

That said, I think it would be very interesting to see what happened if Goodell simply said he is going to suspend Vilma for the year, Hargrove for 8, etc, (same punishments) for the pay-for-performance violation. Would be another "gate" category controversy. I doubt Goodell is interested in that, and he will likely reduce them fairly significantly (maybe by 75%).

[Ravenswintitle]

I bet Sean Payton wishes they had a similar union...

It appears to only delay the suspension but then again that's better than nothing for the players. I doubt if Vilma plays this week though

[JAB1985]

The fact is he didnt have enough evidence to punish them to begin with, imo but certainly not that harshly. You cant punish people on heresay and public opinion. He can lighten their punishment but theres nothing saying the players wont appeal that as well, which i believe is their right as well as the federal judges say. I do think this weakens him and the owners stance that he can be everything but until they sit down and agree to change it, he is within his right, no matter how wrong he may be.

I suggested that the players would win because from what i heard in the media they had no real evidence. I was crucified then for even saying that let alone for suggesting they may actually be innocent. Anybody want to step up and eat that crow?

[JAB1985]

It knocks Goodell down a little bit, in that he set out the punishments for a severe violation (that many thought were too stiff even for that violation), and now the violation has been massively downgraded to a mere "pay for performance" issue. It is going to be extremely hard to punish the players anywhere near as severely now that the violations they are being punished for are so much less serious.

That said, I think it would be very interesting to see what happened if Goodell simply said he is going to suspend Vilma for the year, Hargrove for 8, etc, (same punishments) for the pay-for-performance violation. Would be another "gate" category controversy. I doubt Goodell is interested in that, and he will likely reduce them fairly significantly (maybe by 75%).

Well he offered 50% to settle so that may be on track. Any idea if anybodys been punished for that before?

[Haloti92]

Well he offered 50% to settle so that may be on track. Any idea if anybodys been punished for that before?

Not sure if players have been punished, and certainly not on this scale. I know a few coaches got fines or slaps on wrists for small bonuses for positive performances, but I can't remember any details. I recall Dick Vermeil getting fined for handing out bottles of wine (or something weird) for big plays of some kind. I'll have to look around and see if there is anything that is remotely comparable to this situation, but I doubt there is.

[moose10101]

Wow....this is huge, and now Goodell look s a tad less mighty.

So what does this do for the Saints roster? I am sure they made their cuts to get to 53 players with these suspensions in mind.

First, this was an arbitrator's ruling. There is also a court case still in process.

Second, according to the ruling, Goodell is required to "make an expedited determination of the discipline imposed for violating the league's pay-for-performance/bounty rule". In other words, he can't dish out punishment for any cap violation issues, but he still has authority to punish the players for helping to operate the bounty system. He could theoretically do that tomorrow.

Third, there's nothing that indicates the teams will get a temporary roster exemption in case the players are "re-suspended".

IMHO, for Vilma, this is akin to a delay because the guillotine needs to be greased.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

I knew this eventually was going to happen.

The league's evidence was never clear that there was a clear intent that those guys went out there intending to hurt guys with dirty play. At least none of what they presented would hold up in any court.

It never struck me as fair to basically take a man's entire yearly salary and pretty much ruin his reputation without giving him access to ALL of the "evidence" (basically all the NFL showed the media was circumstantial and while they claimed to have more, the players basically said they never got a chance to see it or examine it).

It all sounded like a salary cap issue...paying guys for hard hits between the lines that just happened to result injury...and there is a clear difference to me.

[Haloti92]

IMHO, for Vilma, this is akin to a delay because the guillotine needs to be greased.

Pretty much, but like I said, Goodell is going to be hard-pressed to keep the suspension lengths as they are, considering the arbiters rejected the claim that these players were intending to injure (or rather rejected the notion that the claim had been adequately supported by evidence).

I think the smart money is on Goodell reducing the suspensions, probably significantly.

[Ravenswintitle]

Even for most who think they're guilty, those penalties were way more severe than what we were expecting. A ban for a year, really?

Agreed that Goodell will likely reduce them significantly

[moose10101]

Pretty much, but like I said, Goodell is going to be hard-pressed to keep the suspension lengths as they are, considering the arbiters rejected the claim that these players were intending to injure (or rather rejected the notion that the claim had been adequately supported by evidence).

I didn't see that in the article. Did you see it elsewhere, or do you have the full ruling?

[Haloti92]

I didn't see that in the article. Did you see it elsewhere, or do you have the full ruling?

CBSSports has amended the article (I think a few times) since I linked it. Sounds like no one knows exactly what the heck is going on.

Despite the confusing stories (ESPN, CBS, NBC), I think the gist of it is that the panel has rejected Goodell's authority (based on CBA? or lack of evidence?) to penalize the players for "paying to injure," but it seems to say that Goodell has the authority to penalize players for "agreeing to injure." This is different from what the CBSSports article originally said, as it did not clearly include the second category.

"Paying for performance" is a way less serious infraction. But "agreeing to injure" seems to me to be pretty serious, so maybe Goodell will, in fact, keep the punishments the same.

This may be an inane matter of semantics, whereby the panel thought there was insufficient proof that players were ever given cash to injure someone, but there was sufficient proof that money was exchanged for something (illegal but minor), and there was proof that players talked about (agreed to) trying to injure specific players (like a moneyless bounty system, which is also against the rules).

I have no idea, and I am not sure any of these media sites know either.

[MarkS]

First things 1st: A link to the actual ruling:

http://static.nfl.com/static/content...headline_stack

Many here have speculated that the arbitration panel ruled "against" the NFL, based on their judgement that the evidence presented by the NFL was insufficient to support the disciplinary actions imposed: Based on my reading of the document (I'm not a lawyer, so YMMV) that's incorrect.

The panel made no judgement as to whether the suspensions were fair or justified - simply whether they were handled properly. Specifically, it says that the commisioner has exclusive authority to impose discipline based on the "conduct detrimental" portion of the CBA (Article 46), while the system arbitrator has exclusive authority over discipline for any potential illegal bonuses under Article 14. And that the panel is unsure whether the discipline imposed by Goodell was based only on the portion of the CBA over which he has final authority, or whether he potentially infringed upon the System Arbitrator's authority.

So the panel vacated the decision, but returned the matter to both the Commish and System Arbitrator so that either (or both) could re-issue a new ruling, presumably, with the Commissioner's discipline covering ONLY the "conduct detrimental" portion of the CBA (i.e: pay to injure), and the SA discipline covering ONLY the (supposedly) illegal bonuses.

The players will be eligible to play until that happens, but this is far from over.

[Haloti92]

First things 1st: A link to the actual ruling:

http://static.nfl.com/static/content...headline_stack

Many here have speculated that the arbitration panel ruled "against" the NFL, based on their judgement that the evidence presented by the NFL was insufficient to support the disciplinary actions imposed: Based on my reading of the document (I'm not a lawyer, so YMMV) that's incorrect.

The panel made no judgement as to whether the suspensions were fair or justified - simply whether they were handled properly. Specifically, it says that the commisioner has exclusive authority to impose discipline based on the "conduct detrimental" portion of the CBA (Article 46), while the system arbitrator has exclusive authority over discipline for any potential illegal bonuses under Article 14. And that the panel is unsure whether the disciplin imposed was based only on the portion of the CBA over which he has final authority, or whether he potentially infringed upon the system arbitrator's authority.

So the panel vacated the decision, but returned the matter to both the Commish and System Arbitrator so that either (or both) could re-issue a new ruling. the players will be eligible to play until that happens, but this is far from over.

Yes, I take back my prediction of significantly reduced sentences. Regardless of whether one feels the penalties were too stiff, "agreeing to injure" players is nominally the same as "paying to injure" players in terms of conduct detrimental.

Then again, the evidence may be lacking to get all the suspended players in the agreement (to injure) aspect of the violations, rather than the money side (running the books, etc).

[JAB1985]

Not sure if players have been punished, and certainly not on this scale. I know a few coaches got fines or slaps on wrists for small bonuses for positive performances, but I can't remember any details. I recall Dick Vermeil getting fined for handing out bottles of wine (or something weird) for big plays of some kind. I'll have to look around and see if there is anything that is remotely comparable to this situation, but I doubt there is.

if coaches have been only slapped on the wrist before i wonder if the ruling will effect payton and/or make him decide to fight it? If only a pay for play is at hand and coaches have only been lightly punished in the past, i think hed be hardpressed to suspend these players at all rightfully. Anything more than they did in the past would just look like hes taking it out on them for fighting him (and winning).

Back to payton, didnt he and williams admit there was a bounty? Or only a pay for play? Thought that was the main evidence the nfl had which would probably mean if they admitted to it they wont be lessened? A lot of questions arise from this, which is exactly why goodell didnt want this to happen.

[JAB1985]

Ok i missed those last couple posts, which seems to have turned this entire thread 180. Im completely confused now.

Nflnetwork is saying he can upheld to suspensions if he can prove intent to injure which he failed to do originally. Im not sure how hes getting more evidence, its not like hed be holding anything back so to me this is a delay at the least but sounds like unless something substantial comes up they should be reduced?