-
Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.
Deshaun Watson Off the Field Thread v2
- Thread starter chrisrich91
- Start date
- Status
Lee
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 41,200
- Reaction score
- 62,114
- Points
- 148
To appeal to themselves, yes I agree, but for the court to uphold the appeal, no, it will have to find errors. That is what an appeal is, not that you dont agree with the suspension, that there is errors in the suspension.
If they appeal, the NFLPA and Watson most likely take it to court.
Vee-Rex
All-Star
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2016
- Messages
- 4,063
- Reaction score
- 8,605
- Points
- 113
To anyone suggesting that Robinson left bits there in order to "encourage" the league to appeal and go with a harsher punishment.
As much as she said about Watson, she was admonishing the league as well. I do not think she wants to have her role undermined through an appeal.
As much as she said about Watson, she was admonishing the league as well. I do not think she wants to have her role undermined through an appeal.
Lee
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 41,200
- Reaction score
- 62,114
- Points
- 148
Remember, an appeal is not supposed to be about what is fair, that doesnt matter, an appeal is because there is a mistake of law, and that is what the NFLPA will argue in court.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,135
- Reaction score
- 64,471
- Points
- 148
Again, you are applying a legal term to a situation to which it does not apply. It is common to see the word "appeal" used in the contacts of a collective bargaining agreement and disciplinary process as youove between various steps in the grievance process, but the meaning of the word within that process does not have the same meaning it has to a court of law hearing an issue on appeal.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,135
- Reaction score
- 64,471
- Points
- 148
The problem with that is that in other places in her decision, she did recognize that there was no directly similar precedent involving multiple similar incidents. It's the fact that there was more than one incident that the NFL would use as justification for increasing his punishment.
I am not arguing that the NFL will do that, or even that it should do that. But I do think that if they determine it is sufficiently important to establish the principle that they are not bound by the Disciplinary Officer's conclusion, this would be a good case to do it because the multiple number of incidents gives them a decent argument.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 10,308
- Reaction score
- 23,676
- Points
- 135
Administrative leave is paid.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,135
- Reaction score
- 64,471
- Points
- 148
Precise wording - what may be considered semantics in some other circumstances - often really matters when it comes to law.
That pisses of a lot of people, but it is important because that kind of precision enables you put the exact intended meaning into rules/contracts so they are less subject to the subjective whims/interpretations of the people involved.
bob2the2nd
member 32
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,074
- Reaction score
- 23,219
- Points
- 135
words have defined meanings and definitions, and those are important...
no way! (i have this fight with my wife at least once a week)
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 36,791
- Reaction score
- 93,996
- Points
- 148
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 10,308
- Reaction score
- 23,676
- Points
- 135
words have defined meanings and definitions, and those are important...
no way! (i have this fight with my wife at least once a week)
Here's an idea for a quick test. Start divorce proceedings and see how exact the words get-- After proving your point, you can tell her it was just a joke.
JDailey23
All-Star
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,917
- Reaction score
- 5,415
- Points
- 113
That was a lot of pages of nothing.
If Roger appeals and suspends him for longer or even the season, why even bother with Sue going forward.
Again, Roger had MANY opportunities to just put him on the exempt list and then wait for the cases to end.
To appeal, which they have the right to do and probably will do, for optics, looks really foolish in the end.
They will win with the media, but will lose credibility with people that matter.
If Roger appeals and suspends him for longer or even the season, why even bother with Sue going forward.
Again, Roger had MANY opportunities to just put him on the exempt list and then wait for the cases to end.
To appeal, which they have the right to do and probably will do, for optics, looks really foolish in the end.
They will win with the media, but will lose credibility with people that matter.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,973
- Reaction score
- 101,647
- Points
- 148
Not sure what you’re getting at here?
Not the same person actually. In my years hanging around with one lawyer, I’ve become friendly with a couple. Fuckers multiply.
He thought 8 games. Never claimed anything about Sue Robinson.
But a mutual friend of both of ours heard NFL affiliated lawyers talking 12 games(which just so happened to be their final settlement offer to Watson that we just found out about publicly). They thought Watson was going to take the 12 games—it was the first time they came off of indefinite suspensions. So that’s what the “scuttlebutt” at the time was all about.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,973
- Reaction score
- 101,647
- Points
- 148
Even more of a reason he shouldn’t have put Watson on it. He shouldn’t get a year of paid suspension credit for a year he was never playing in anyway. Nonsense.
- Status