Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33
  1. #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 05:27 PM.




  2. #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 05:29 PM.




  3. #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).




  4. #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




  5. #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




  6. #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.




  7. #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.




  8. #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




  9. #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 06:28 PM.




  10. #25

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    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.
    No, the ruling made no reference at all to the whether the evidence was sufficient or insufficient. Merely that Goodell based his suspensions on the allegation that the players had violated 2 different sections of the CBA, even though he only has the authority to impose to impose discipline under one.

    And whatever his new ruling is, it won't take place before this weekend's games - the NFL has already said the suspensions are lifted and the players are eligible to play this weekend. In fact, the NFL actually granted the Browns a roster exemption (to 54) so they can put Fugita back on the active roster.




  11. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,532

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    Quote Originally Posted by moose10101 View Post
    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.
    This is dead on. I think ESPN et all are jumping the gun here.

    This is very much like the Ryan Braun ruling. This isn't an indictment of the evidence. The only issue here is Goodell overstepped by handing out punishment on the salary cap penalties.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  12. #27

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    Quote Originally Posted by moose10101 View Post
    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.
    All true - My comment was my own speculation on WHY Goodell chose to confederate the two arguments when he made his initial ruling.




  13. #28

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    It could end up being significant, depending on the evidence, because some of the players may have been penalized more for the money side of things (like Vilma) rather than actual intentional attempts to injure.

    In other words, Goodell hated the whole scheme, and penalized the "ringleaders" more than the grunts because of it, but if the violations are looked at as separate pieces, then maybe the ringleaders/money-providers actually did less (just paid for performance) than the grunts/guys who were trying to earn the money (intending to injure).

    It will be interesting to see if Goodell reduces them just to try to end the distraction, and if so, by how much.




  14. #29

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    It could end up being significant, depending on the evidence, because some of the players may have been penalized more for the money side of things (like Vilma) rather than actual intentional attempts to injure.

    In other words, Goodell hated the whole scheme, and penalized the "ringleaders" more than the grunts because of it, but if the violations are looked at as separate pieces, then maybe the ringleaders/money-providers actually did less (just paid for performance) than the grunts/guys who were trying to earn the money (intending to injure).

    It will be interesting to see if Goodell reduces them just to try to end the distraction, and if so, by how much.
    damn good theory. Its possible vilma will be vindicated after all of this.
    -JAB




  15. #30

    Re: Saints players win appeal versus NFL on bounty suspensions

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    damn good theory. Its possible vilma will be vindicated after all of this.
    Not likely - at least, not if you believe Gregg Williams:

    "In Monday's meeting, the NFL gave Vilma a sworn affidavit from former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams that the New Orleans linebacker offered $10,000 to any teammate who knocked quarterback Brett Favre out of the January 2010 NFC Championship Game"

    Link to the artice:
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/83...-roger-goodell

    And the affidavit:
    http://assets.espn.go.com/pdf/2012/0...msdocument.pdf
    Last edited by MarkS; 09-17-2012 at 07:27 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