Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 33
  1. #13

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions



    Quote Originally Posted by moose10101 View Post

    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.





  2. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    over by the dental floss bush
    Posts
    12,893
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    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
    World Domination 3 Points at a Time!




  3. #15

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    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?




  4. #16

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    Quote Originally Posted by moose10101 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 09-07-2012 at 04:27 PM.




  5. #17

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    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.
    Last edited by MarkS; 09-07-2012 at 04:29 PM.




  6. #18

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkS View Post
    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).




  7. #19

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    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.
    -JAB




  8. #20

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    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?
    -JAB




  9. #21

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    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?
    See Haloti's post above: I think he's speculating (and I'm inclined to agree) that the evidence of "pay to injure" was never as strong as the NFL would have liked, and that's why Goodell included the bounties/"illegal bonuses" as part of his justification for the suspensions. Those will have to be treated separately now.




  10. #22

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    There was no hard evidence.

    That was the reason they were in this fight to begin with.

    The NFL can't just take a guys salary on interpretations of circumstantial evidence.

    Something did happen here...there were payments and I don't think anybody questions that. But there was no clear evidence that the payments were the result of guys clearly playing dirty to hurt guys.




  11. #23

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkS View Post
    See Haloti's post above: I think he's speculating (and I'm inclined to agree) that the evidence of "pay to injure" was never as strong as the NFL would have liked, and that's why Goodell included the bounties/"illegal bonuses" as part of his justification for the suspensions. Those will have to be treated separately now.
    so they can still be suspended but they did say insufficient evidence of a bounty. Im confused where the "agree to injure" vs "pay to injure" comes in. To me if they evidence of one they should the other especially if theyre saying there was evidence of a "pay for play". Im sure itll make more sense in the next day or two. Goodell probably wont wait very long with this. Im sure he doesnt want them to play this weekend.
    -JAB




  12. #24

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkS View Post
    See Haloti's post above: I think he's speculating (and I'm inclined to agree) that the evidence of "pay to injure" was never as strong as the NFL would have liked, and that's why Goodell included the bounties/"illegal bonuses" as part of his justification for the suspensions. Those will have to be treated separately now.
    Haloti has already withdrawn that statement because the article has been edited. What it boils down to is that the arbitrator made a purely jurisdictional ruling, i.e. the Commissioner has no authority to enforce Article 14 (salary cap violations); that is the arbitrator's territory. However, the Commissioner still has jurisdiction under Article 46 (conduct detrimental). The arbitrator made no ruling whatsoever on whether the Commissioner had sufficient evidence under Article 46.

    In fact, the ruling stated that:

    1) The conduct in question may be punishable under both Articles 14 and 46
    2) The NFLPA agrees with #1
    3) The arbitrator admits to having no idea whether the severity of the punishment was in any way related to the alleged Article 14 violations
    4) The Commissioner can exercise his exclusive jurisdiction to punish the players under Article 46, and the arbitrator could further punish them under Article 14.

    Once again, Vilma can celebrate, but I don't see where he's won much of anything yet. The arbitrator has clearly affirmed the Commissioner's power to punish him under Article 46.

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever played on on TV.
    Last edited by moose10101; 09-07-2012 at 05:28 PM.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland