Deshaun Watson Off the Field Thread v2

[Los216]

But the NFL can create a new precedent without appealing the suspension too, right?

As far as I know, there's nothing really stopping the NFL from waiting a little bit and simply announcing (after coming to an agreement with the NFLPA of course) that "moving forward any violation of the Personal Conduct Policy that involves non-violent sexual related allegations will be a minimum of a X game suspension with the possibility of more based on the severity of the allegations"

Yes but this won't retroactively apply to Deshaun Watson.

 

[Vee-Rex]

Why would you expect the NFL to unilaterally take action when they didn't have to?

Watson said he was done playing for the Texans. The Texans weren't going to play him. Issue sorted--no need for the league to rush to judgment and get involved.

The interesting nugget I see from this point is that Goodell could have put him on the exempt list at the start of the new NFL year but two grand juries failed to indict so they didn't seem to care at the time. However, it wasn't until the nasty months of May/June where the public reacted strongly to the HBO special and more detailed allegations that the NFL started touting, prior to the hearing, that they wanted an indefinite suspension.

Robinson is correct that the NFL is only reacting to public opinion. Her facts of finding, IMO, apply not only to Deshaun Watson but to the NFL as well.

Everyone is labeling Goodell as the ultimate authority but ignoring that he's often a puppet for the owners. How does an appeal potentially affect them if this gets drawn out in federal court?

I don't think the NFL appeals, but we'll see.

 

[CBBI]

Yes but this won't retroactively apply to Deshaun Watson.

It can if the NFL wants it to. Per the collective bargaining agreement.

 

[Los216]

Sure, but they could have ended up doing this exact same process.

I think the reality is, the NFL was in a fact finding process. They wanted to know exactly what they were dealing with and that took time. The Texans and Watson both agreed that he wasn’t going to take the field…so the NFL had absolutely no impotus to act prematurely.

That would have been letting Watson off easy. He doesn’t just get to self impose and serve a suspension when he doesn’t plan on playing anyway. That’s barely a punishment at all.

Watson doesn’t deserve shit for last year. He brought it all on himself and doesn’t get to slink out of actual consequences because he sat out during a time he wasn’t planning on playing anyway.

This is a cop out. It takes nothing for Goodell to put him on the Exempt list. If anything it would've sped up the whole process. He could've been suspended his last season with HOU while still requesting a trade.

Had he been put on the Exempt list or suspended his last season with HOU, there would've been a clean slate for the new team that traded for him.

Do I think Deshaun Watson would've been okay with being suspended his last season in HOU? Yes. Would he have liked not getting paid for a full season? No, but he was still going to get that massive contract from the next team who traded for him.

Also, had Deshaun Watson been suspended for the full season last year, my guess is that he would've already settled all of the cases during that time too.

So he would've had a new team, new contract, no civil suits, and everything put in the past as early as March this year.

There was a lot to gain for everyone involved had he simply been suspended last season but the NFL kicked the can.

 

[Los216]

It can if the NFL wants it to. Per the collective bargaining agreement.

And this is why people think they will lose in court because the NFLPA has a strong case to fight the NFL changing the precedent after the fact and retroactively applying it to Deshaun Watson.

 

[CBBI]

And this is why people think they will lose in court because the NFLPA has a strong case to fight the NFL changing the precedent after the fact and retroactively applying it to Deshaun Watson.

Except that whole "changing the precedent after the fact" thing isn't actually a thing.

The NFL isn't actually bound by that. That was simply an independant arbiter's recommendation based on her review of the case.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Wouldnt that be determined by what the appeal was? If Watson is appealing *any* suspension, then i think an injunction is ordered for all games. If he just appeals the amount beyond what Robinson decided, *then* the 6 games stand and the injunction is ordered for games 7+.

It wouldn't technically be an appeal to the federal court - it's actually a separate, independent court action, and there wouldn't be any kind of automatic stay issued. Just standard injunction standards, which includes "likelihood of success in the merits" as one of the elements.

That means to get an injunction against any suspension at all, they'd have to persuade the judge with an initial filing/hearing that any suspension at all amounts to either a breach or bad-faith application of the CBA. That would be very difficult, in my opinion. And probably extraordinarily bad PR for both the NFLPA and Watson to argue he deserves nothing at all.

A judge could easily decide that while the amount of any increased suspension is questionable, the basic six games is not. So he/she could let that ride and only address the additional games.

 

[Lee]

This is important thing to consider on the appeal. Its not just about what Watson deserves, an appeal will end up in federal court, airing allot of dirty laundry and extending by about a year the Watson conversation.

I think the league should be allowed to make penalties harsher, but does 4 accusations (only 4 testified) or even 24 accusations, with no violence nor forcing equal one forced rape in Ben Roethlisberger. I would argue one rape is worse than 24 times asking for sex and exposing yourself. Not saying the latter is good, its creepy, bad and deserves atleast 8 games, but the rape charge deserved more.

Its a slippery slope for the NFL to appeal. We will know in about 21 hours.

 

[Selby]

Sure, but they could have ended up doing this exact same process.

I think the reality is, the NFL was in a fact finding process. They wanted to know exactly what they were dealing with and that took time. The Texans and Watson both agreed that he wasn’t going to take the field…so the NFL had absolutely no impotus to act prematurely.

That would have been letting Watson off easy. He doesn’t just get to self impose and serve a suspension when he doesn’t plan on playing anyway. That’s barely a punishment at all.

Watson doesn’t deserve shit for last year. He brought it all on himself and doesn’t get to slink out of actual consequences because he sat out during a time he wasn’t planning on playing anyway.

I tried getting this stuff through to him weeks ago. As you'd guess, it didn't work.

Best of luck, maybe he can read your posts better than mine!

 

[InBoobieWeTrust]

It wouldn't technically be an appeal to the federal court - it's actually a separate, independent court action, and there wouldn't be any kind of automatic stay issued. Just standard injunction standards, which includes "likelihood of success in the merits" as one of the elements.

That means to get an injunction against any suspension at all, they'd have to persuade the judge with an initial filing/hearing that any suspension at all amounts to either a breach or bad-faith application of the CBA. That would be very difficult, in my opinion. And probably extraordinarily bad PR for both the NFLPA and Watson to argue he deserves nothing at all.

A judge could easily decide that while the amount of any increased suspension is questionable, the basic six games is not. So he/she could let that ride and only address the additional games.

I think this is exactly what would go down. Watson would serve 6 games as the lawsuit worked its way through the court. I think there would be a lot of pressure for both sides to settle on a higher punishment rather than Watson be yanked out during the playoffs or late in the season when the NFL may be willing to increase it to 10-12 games and a fine, guaranteeing Watson is back this year near the end.

 

[InBoobieWeTrust]

I tried getting this stuff through to him weeks ago. As you'd guess, it didn't work.

Best of luck, maybe he can read your posts better than mine!

It’d be like if Kyrie did something to get suspended prior to last season and it didn’t get resolved until this summer…then him arguing he should have been able to serve his suspension while he was sitting out due to not being vaccinated.

 

[CBBI]

I think this is exactly what would go down. Watson would serve 6 games as the lawsuit worked its way through the court. I think there would be a lot of pressure for both sides to settle on a higher punishment rather than Watson be yanked out during the playoffs or late in the season when the NFL may be willing to increase it to 10-12 games and a fine, guaranteeing Watson is back this year near the end.

To you and @The Human Q-Tip both…

Total guess on my part, but my guess is that if the NFL does issue a formal appeal, the NFL players association will also issue an appeal of their own to try and force the issue with a judge to grant Watson a temporary injunction to play immediately.

 

[Lee]

People need to understand that the NFL is absolutely unequivocally not bound by Judge Robinson's thoughts that they need to have established precedent on suspension length before they can levy an unprecedented suspension.

That's simply her recommendation as an independent arbiter who was jointly hired by the NFL and NFLPA. Nothing more than that.

Agree with the first part, but wording is important.

This is not a recommendation. Its a decision. She was hired to decide if punishment and decide the punishment. The NFL can appeal to itself, but its an appeal, not their decision.

This is important, because if the NFL appeals, the NFLPA will sue based upon unfair work place practices because a decision has been made by an impartial arbitrator that both agreed on. The NFL will have to find why her decision wasnt just and fair, not if it liked it.

The NFL cant just make up their mind here, they will have to prove in a court of law why Judge Robinson was wrong, and that will get ugly and probably end with her decision being upheld but makes this case go on for a year, and all but 1 are now settled and sealed.

I think its 50/50 that the NFL appeals. I think Watson DESERVED longer based upon merit, but got what he DESERVED based upon precedent. Not sure precedent alone should be considered, I do think 8 games to move the president ahead was fair.

All that said, the NFL would be foolish to appeal, it would make this conversation go on for so much longer to gain very little if they win, which i dont think the will.

 

[2 For The Brew]

The NFLPA has been trying for decades to reduce the Commissioner's unilateral authority to impose punishment on players who violate the rules. They've been through multiple CBAs but the best they could do is add an investigator with limited authority.

If the NFLPA had been able to make her role that of a binding arbitrator then Goodell couldn't act. They didn't.

I think Sue's opinion is correct and the NFL is clearly reacting to public opinion and wants to impose a harsher penalty than they have in the past. It's not just. Watson is a creep but deserves a fair and just process.

The CBA doesn't guarantee that though.

If Roger does impose a harsher penalty then the NFLPA will go DefCon 1 and launch a massive PR assault, claiming that Goodell ignored his own advisor and sacrificed Watson to placate the mob. They will likely file a lawsuit. It's not worth the trouble to the NFL in my opinion but in the end they do have the power.

 

[CBBI]

Agree with the first part, but wording is important.

This is not a recommendation. Its a decision. She was hired to decide if punishment and decide the punishment. The NFL can appeal to itself, but its an appeal, not their decision.

This is important, because if the NFL appeals, the NFLPA will sue based upon unfair work place practices because a decision has been made by an impartial arbitrator that both agreed on. The NFL will have to find why her decision wasnt just and fair, not if it liked it.

The NFL cant just make up their mind here, they will have to prove in a court of law why Judge Robinson was wrong, and that will get ugly and probably end with her decision being upheld but makes this case go on for a year, and all but 1 are now settled and sealed.

I think its 50/50 that the NFL appeals. I think Watson DESERVED longer based upon merit, but got what he DESERVED based upon precedent. Not sure precedent alone should be considered, I do think 8 games to move the president ahead was fair.

All that said, the NFL would be foolish to appeal, it would make this conversation go on for so much longer to gain very little if they win, which i dont think the will.

I don’t mean this disrespectfully but I think that you are severely overestimating what the NFL would have to prove and where they would have to prove it.

The odds of a lawsuit ever reaching a court room are so unbelievably low that I am shocked at how many people are suggesting it like it’s a real option.