Deshaun Watson hearing is expected to last “several days”
Posted by Mike Florio on June 28, 2022, 5:50 PM EDT link
The Deshaun Watson disciplinary hearing got started on Tuesday. So far, not much information has emerged from the proceedings.
Mark Maske of the Washington Post added this nugget to the broader narrative earlier today — the hearing is expected to last “several days.” Maske adds that it’s not known when Judge Sue L. Robinson will make her decision.
The biggest question continues to be whether and to what extent Judge Robinson will allow the NFL Players Association to develop and present the argument that Watson’s punishment must be proportional to discipline imposed, or not imposed, on specific owners who may have violated the Personal Conduct Policy in recent years.
If Judge Robinson imposes any discipline on Watson, Commissioner Roger Goodell will have the ability, on appeal, to increase the punishment. It’s possible that the NFL entered the process asking for a lot, with the goal of ultimately imposing something less than what the league seeks.
It’s also possible that Goodell, whose job was believe in jeopardy (at leas temporarily) in 2014 over the league’s failure to impose sufficient discipline on Ray Rice, will do whatever he can to give the NFL the end result it current seeks — an indefinite suspension of at least a full season.
mac....When the NFLPA says he shouldn't be suspended, I think the argument is with precedence shown to the owners and prior cases...
But, I don't think that it precludes a fine or other discipline...
So in that light...I could see a case for it...depending on the severity of Judge Robinsons decision of whether the PCP was breeched.
pete...I'm trying to look at the Watson case through the viewpoint of my interpretation of the law...I know, that's a bit of a stretch on my part..lol..!
Simply stated, the owners are not trial here, Watson is. (I use the word "trial" because I can't think of a more appropriate word at this time.)
Also, the conduct of the owners and the judgement rendered were under the previous contract and a past Code of Conduct policy.
Watson is the first case of this magnitude to judged under the "new" Personal Conduct Policy.
There is not a new Personal Conduct Policy. There is a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. It was established in 2020. It's over 450 pages long. The last Personal Conduct Policy was established in 2018 and I have posted that information multiple times and even tried to explain it to you. As stated many times, the NFLPA is indeed going to use the discrepancies between how owners are disciplined for violations of the Personal Conduct policy compared to the players. I have no idea how effective that argument will be w/Judge Robinson, but it's a weapon for Watson's defense team and players in general.
I'm going to leave out how I feel about the accusations and simply state that the easiest course of action today for the NFL is an indefinite suspension until all cases are settled. No mention of any # of games...just the 'ole wait-and-see. That would be very difficult to dispute unfortunately.
Report: NFL “more likely” to accept 6-8 game suspension of Deshaun Watson and not appeal
Posted by Mike Florio on June 28, 2022, 11:47 PM EDT link
Not much news has emanated during or after the first day of the Deshaun Watson disciplinary hearing. One specific item of information that has emerged cries out for further analysis and interpretation.
From Rob Maaddi of the Associated Press: “I’m also told the NFL, despite insisting on indefinite suspension, wants to avoid the appeals process — source said ‘a terrible situation for everyone involved’ — so league is more likely to abide by Sue Robinson’s ruling IF she came back with 6-8 games.”
It’s a surprising revelation. If it’s true and accurate (and we’ll defer to Maaddi in that regard), the question becomes what does it mean?
For starters, why would the NFL leak this critical concession? Does it fear that, if Judge Robinson believes the NFL is destined to seize upon an inherently rigged appeal process, she’d be more likely to impose no discipline at all on Watson? After all, that’s the only way under the Collective Bargaining Agreement to prevent any appeal, which would then be resolved by the Commissioner.
It’s hard not to wonder whether it’s all a ruse aimed at getting her to impose some discipline, so that the league could then appeal to the Commissioner, whose employees already have decided that Watson should be suspended for at least a year.
Remember, the Commissioner cannot afford to be perceived as being too lenient with Watson. It would be difficult to sell to anyone the idea that the league has simply accepted something far less than what the NFL wanted, simply to avoid prolonging a “terrible situation.” Given the steps of the process that the NFL and NFL Players Association collectively bargained, the league has the absolute right to take to the Commissioner any decision from Judge Robinson, other than a decision to not discipline Watson at all. Why would the league simply accept Judge Robinson’s decision, if it falls far short of what the league wants?
Frankly, it feels like a rope-a-dope maneuver by the league. By making Judge Robinson believe that the league wouldn’t appeal her decision if it lands in the range of 6-8 games, perhaps she’d be less inclined to find that Watson shouldn’t be disciplined at all, since that’s otherwise the only want to keep the Commissioner from imposing the punishment that the league currently wants. By leaking this to the AP after the first day of the hearings, the league quite possibly is using the media to negotiate with Judge Robinson for moderate discipline, with a wink-nod that her decision wouldn’t be disturbed if it lands in the supposedly preferred range.
If it gets her to impose 6-8 games under the assumption that the league won’t challenge it, the league can then initiate the appeal process and ask for what it wanted in the first place.
Really, how much more “terrible” would the situation become if the league appeals Judge Robinson’s decision to the Commissioner? It’s not as if there would be another full-blown hearing. That’s happening now. The appeal to the Commissioner would be much more streamlined and efficient. It would take less time and effort. And, by the very language of the CBA, it would allow the Commissioner to implement the very punishment that his office currently is trying to secure.
Anyone who knows anything about the manner in which the league office under the leadership of Roger Goodell has behaved for nearly 16 years knows that the league will be as aggressive as it chooses to be. Despite periodic missteps (including most notably the bungled handing of the Ray Rice case), the Commissioner has lived up to his reputation as The Enforcer. Why would anyone believe that he’d accept a 6-8 game suspension for Watson when the league office is currently pushing for a minimum ban of at least one year?
No, it looks and feels like an effort to get Judge Robinson to think that her ruling will be safe, in order to minimize any temptation to slam the door on the Commissioner’s appellate jurisdiction by finding that Watson shouldn’t be punished at all. And if we’re able to see this, she is, too.
Bottom line? We don’t buy it. And she shouldn’t, either. Nothing leaked to the Associated Press or anyone else is binding on the NFL. Once the league gets the 6-8 game suspension that it now seeks, the league can appeal it to the Commissioner. Some will say, “But I thought they weren’t going to appeal a suspension of that duration?” The league, at that point, can either ignore those questions or simply say, “We never officially said that.”
Given that this is the first application of the new process arising from the 2020 labor deal, there’s no precedent, no history, no past practice. Everyone is plowing new ground, sailing through uncharted waters.
The league has a long history of doing everything it can to get anything it wants. Currently, it wants to suspend Watson for at least a year. It’s very hard to imagine that the league would just shrug and accept 6-8 games, when it knows that it can appeal the case directly to the person who runs the league office for more. Our guess is that the league wants to be sure that Judge Robinson imposes some discipline, so that the Commissioner can than impose the full extent of the discipline the league wants.
The Policy hasn't changed....just the disciplinary process has changed...Precedence should be still in play...but it is obviously up to Judge Robinson as to how much...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Report: NFL “more likely” to accept 6-8 game suspension of Deshaun Watson and not appeal
Posted by Mike Florio on June 28, 2022, 11:47 PM EDT link
Not much news has emanated during or after the first day of the Deshaun Watson disciplinary hearing. One specific item of information that has emerged cries out for further analysis and interpretation.
From Rob Maaddi of the Associated Press: “I’m also told the NFL, despite insisting on indefinite suspension, wants to avoid the appeals process — source said ‘a terrible situation for everyone involved’ — so league is more likely to abide by Sue Robinson’s ruling IF she came back with 6-8 games.”
It’s a surprising revelation. If it’s true and accurate (and we’ll defer to Maaddi in that regard), the question becomes what does it mean?
For starters, why would the NFL leak this critical concession? Does it fear that, if Judge Robinson believes the NFL is destined to seize upon an inherently rigged appeal process, she’d be more likely to impose no discipline at all on Watson? After all, that’s the only way under the Collective Bargaining Agreement to prevent any appeal, which would then be resolved by the Commissioner.
It’s hard not to wonder whether it’s all a ruse aimed at getting her to impose some discipline, so that the league could then appeal to the Commissioner, whose employees already have decided that Watson should be suspended for at least a year.
Remember, the Commissioner cannot afford to be perceived as being too lenient with Watson. It would be difficult to sell to anyone the idea that the league has simply accepted something far less than what the NFL wanted, simply to avoid prolonging a “terrible situation.” Given the steps of the process that the NFL and NFL Players Association collectively bargained, the league has the absolute right to take to the Commissioner any decision from Judge Robinson, other than a decision to not discipline Watson at all. Why would the league simply accept Judge Robinson’s decision, if it falls far short of what the league wants?
Frankly, it feels like a rope-a-dope maneuver by the league. By making Judge Robinson believe that the league wouldn’t appeal her decision if it lands in the range of 6-8 games, perhaps she’d be less inclined to find that Watson shouldn’t be disciplined at all, since that’s otherwise the only want to keep the Commissioner from imposing the punishment that the league currently wants. By leaking this to the AP after the first day of the hearings, the league quite possibly is using the media to negotiate with Judge Robinson for moderate discipline, with a wink-nod that her decision wouldn’t be disturbed if it lands in the supposedly preferred range.
If it gets her to impose 6-8 games under the assumption that the league won’t challenge it, the league can then initiate the appeal process and ask for what it wanted in the first place.
Really, how much more “terrible” would the situation become if the league appeals Judge Robinson’s decision to the Commissioner? It’s not as if there would be another full-blown hearing. That’s happening now. The appeal to the Commissioner would be much more streamlined and efficient. It would take less time and effort. And, by the very language of the CBA, it would allow the Commissioner to implement the very punishment that his office currently is trying to secure.
Anyone who knows anything about the manner in which the league office under the leadership of Roger Goodell has behaved for nearly 16 years knows that the league will be as aggressive as it chooses to be. Despite periodic missteps (including most notably the bungled handing of the Ray Rice case), the Commissioner has lived up to his reputation as The Enforcer. Why would anyone believe that he’d accept a 6-8 game suspension for Watson when the league office is currently pushing for a minimum ban of at least one year?
No, it looks and feels like an effort to get Judge Robinson to think that her ruling will be safe, in order to minimize any temptation to slam the door on the Commissioner’s appellate jurisdiction by finding that Watson shouldn’t be punished at all. And if we’re able to see this, she is, too.
Bottom line? We don’t buy it. And she shouldn’t, either. Nothing leaked to the Associated Press or anyone else is binding on the NFL. Once the league gets the 6-8 game suspension that it now seeks, the league can appeal it to the Commissioner. Some will say, “But I thought they weren’t going to appeal a suspension of that duration?” The league, at that point, can either ignore those questions or simply say, “We never officially said that.”
Given that this is the first application of the new process arising from the 2020 labor deal, there’s no precedent, no history, no past practice. Everyone is plowing new ground, sailing through uncharted waters.
The league has a long history of doing everything it can to get anything it wants. Currently, it wants to suspend Watson for at least a year. It’s very hard to imagine that the league would just shrug and accept 6-8 games, when it knows that it can appeal the case directly to the person who runs the league office for more. Our guess is that the league wants to be sure that Judge Robinson imposes some discipline, so that the Commissioner can than impose the full extent of the discipline the league wants.
I'd imagine it's an easy out for the league with this process. They want a longer suspension as their statement, the actual suspension is shorter so they can shrug and say it isnt their fault. They may still face protests and such, but its a simple shoulder shrug and a half hearted "We tried!" with the hope that it simmers down quickly.
The whole reason the whole disciplinary process has changed is because of the unequal treatment perceived (rightly so in my opinion) by the NFLPA between punishment to players and punishment to owners and other NFL Staff. Judge Robinson can't go back and change the punishment of the previous cases...So it can be argued that a heavy punishment is still unfair despite being a new process...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Memphis posted the Florio article on the other thread. I'll give the same response as I did the first time it was posted.
First, we have to determine if the NFL actually leaked the information about it being "more likely" to accept the 6-8 game suspension. Secondly, Judge Robinson should not let that bit of information influence her decision one way or the other. I researched her and while there is a surprising lack of information available, her record seems very clean. There is nothing in her background like Lisa Friel's that would lead one to question her integrity. I think Judge Robinson will weigh the information presented by the three parties and make a ruling based solely on that rather than how either side will react to her ruling.
I have no idea on how Judge Robinson will rule in regards to Deshaun's suspension, but my instincts tell me that she will be more fair than Goodell and the NFL have been in their prior decisions regarding the Personal Conduct policy.
Ummm, the 2018 PCP (Article 46) was changed in 2020 so that makes it new. That would be why this is Judge Robinson's first case. Secondly, there were obvious errors made one way or another under the previous PCP. The current setup is supposed to address those issues. Even if the owners received treatment under the old policy that some may say is questionable, using that to downplay the severity of Watson's action does the exact thing that the new PCP is supposed to fix to address issues like that. If Judge Robinson or the NFLPA make the determination to downplay Watson's issue's then the new PCP that was supposed to fix those issues is no better than the paper it is written on. Just because Watson is a Cleveland Brown and the first major case under the new PCP doesn't mean we should revert back to the old way of doing things.
The fair question you have to ask yourself is if the PCP was broken and through contract negotiation the new PCP was approved by both sides, why are you and the NFLPA now campaigning for Watson to be looked at differently and revert back to the old way of doing things? There has never been a player in the history of the NFL that has had 24-30 plus civil suits against him for alleged sexual assault. The NFLPA and Vers would now want Judge Robinson to downplay the sheer volume of the women's accusations against Watson to a suspension as low as zero games suspended. The most heinous accusations in pure volume of number of alleged victims in the history of the league and the NFLPA wants zero suspension? Why adjust the process if they're going to keep doing the same process as always? Precedent - what kind of precedent is the NFLPA and the NFL setting going forward if Watson who has 24-30 plus alleged sexual assault civil suits against him to an 8-game or zero suspension time? What kind of message is that sending to the players - and women everywhere?
I have tried hard to educate us all. I have spent a ton of time researching this. I will post Article 46 of the new CBA and then the first two paragraphs of the Personal Conduct Policy. I tried posting it all, but the formatting was whacky. You can click on the link to read the full policy. It is 8 pages long.
Here is Article 46 of the new CBA:
Quote
NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement Article 46
Commissioner Discipline
Section 1. League Discipline Notwithstanding anything stated in Article 43;
(a) All disputes involving a fine or suspension imposed upon a player for conduct on the playing field (other than as described in Subsection (b) below) or involving action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football (other than as described in Subsection (e) below), will be processed exclusively as follows: the Commissioner will promptly send written notice of his action to the player, with a copy to the NFLPA. Within three (3) business days following such written notification, the player affected thereby, or the NFLPA with the player’s approval, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner.
(b) Fines or suspensions imposed upon players for unnecessary roughness or unsportsmanlike conduct on the playing field with respect to an opposing player or players shall be determined initially by a person appointed by the Commissioner after consultation concerning the person being appointed with the Executive Director of the NFLPA, as promptly as possible after the event(s) in question. Such person will send written notice of his action to the player, with a copy to the NFLPA. Within three (3) business days following such notification, the player, or the NFLPA with his approval, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner.
(c) The Commissioner (under Subsection (a)), or the person appointed by the Commissioner under Subsection (b), shall consult with the Executive Director of the NFLPA prior to issuing, for on-field conduct, any suspension or fine in excess of $50,000.
(d) The schedule of fines for on-field conduct will be provided to the NFLPA prior to the start of training camp in each season covered under this Agreement. The 2020 Schedule of Fines and Aggravating/Mitigating Factors, which have been provided to and accepted by the NFLPA and are attached hereto as Appendix U, shall serve as the basis of discipline for the infractions identified on that schedule. The designated minimum fine amounts will increase by 3% for the 2021 League Year, and each League Year thereafter during the term of this Agreement. On appeal, a player may assert, among other defenses, that any fine should be reduced because it is excessive when compared to the player’s expected earnings for the season in question. A player may also argue on appeal that the circumstances do not warrant his receiving a fine above the amount stated in the schedule of fines.
(e) (e)(i) Fines or suspensions imposed upon players for violating the League’s Personal Conduct Policy, as well as whether a violation of the Personal Conduct Policy has been proven by the NFL, will be initially determined by a Disciplinary Officer jointly selected and appointed by the parties. Unless the parties mutually determine otherwise, the Disciplinary Officer shall serve a minimum two-year term. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Officer may be discharged by either party at any time upon 120 days’ written notice. Upon notice of intention to discharge or notice of intention to resign, the parties will each identify a minimum of two successor candidates. All timely candidates will then be promptly ranked by the parties. Within sixty days, the top two candidates will be interviewed by the parties. Absent agreement on a successor, the parties will alternately strike names from said list, with the party striking first to be determined by the flip of a coin. Should a party fail to identify, rank, interview or strike candidates in a timely manner, that party will forfeit its rights with respect to that step of the appointment process, including selection of the ultimate successor if that party fails to participate in alternate striking.
(e)(ii) The Disciplinary Officer will be responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings (pursuant to the procedures of Section 2 below), issuing binding findings of fact and determining the discipline that should be imposed, if any, in accordance with the Personal Conduct Policy.
(e)(iii) At least ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing, the NFL shall inform the NFLPA, player and Disciplinary Officer of the recommended terms of discipline.
(e)(iv) The NFL will have the burden of establishing that the player violated the Personal Conduct Policy. The NFL also will publish mitigating factors for discipline which shall include acceptance of responsibility and cooperation, engagement with clinical resources and voluntary restitution.
(e)(v) The Disciplinary Officer’s disciplinary determination will be final and binding subject only to the right of either party to appeal to the Commissioner. The appeal shall be in writing within three business days of the Disciplinary Officer’s decision, and any response to the appeal shall be filed in writing within two business days thereafter. The appeal shall be limited to arguments why, based on the evidentiary record below, the amount of discipline, if any, should be modified. The Commissioner or his designee will issue a written decision that will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the dispute and will be binding upon the player(s), Club(s) and the parties to this Agreement.
Section 2. Hearings (a) Hearing Officers. For appeals under Section 1(a) above, the Commissioner shall, after consultation with the Executive Director of the NFLPA, appoint one or more designees to serve as hearing officers. For appeals under Section 1(b) above, the parties shall, on an annual basis, jointly select two (2) or more designees to serve as hearing officers. For hearings under Section 1(e)(i) above, the Disciplinary Officer shall serve as the hearing officer. The salary and reasonable expenses for the services of the Disciplinary Officer and the designees referenced in this section shall be shared equally by the NFL and the NFLPA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in any appeal under Section 1(a) of this Article at his discretion. In no event will the Commissioner serve as hearing officer in hearings under Section 1(e)(i).
(b) Representation. In any hearing provided for in this Article, a player may be accompanied by counsel of his choice. The NFLPA and NFL have the right to attend all hearings provided for in this Article and to present, by testimony or otherwise, any evidence relevant to the hearing.
(c) Telephone Hearings. Upon agreement of the parties, hearings under this Article may be conducted by telephone conference call or videoconference.
(d) Decision. Except as otherwise provided in Section 1(e) above, as soon as practicable following the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer will render a written decision which will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the dispute and will be binding upon the player(s), Club(s) and the parties to this Agreement with respect to that dispute. Any discipline imposed pursuant to Section 1(b) may only be affirmed, reduced, or vacated by the hearing officer, and may not be increased.
(e) Costs. Unless the Commissioner determines otherwise, each party will bear the cost of its own witnesses, counsel and other expenses associated with the appeal. (f) Additional Procedures for Appeals and Hearings Under Sections 1(a) and 1(e)(i).
(e)(i) Scheduling.
(e)(i)(A) Appeal hearings under Section 1(a) will be scheduled to commence within ten (10) days following receipt of the notice of appeal, except that hearings on suspensions issued during the playing season (defined for this Section as the first preseason game through the Super Bowl) will be scheduled for the second Tuesday following the receipt of the notice of appeal, with the intent that the appeal shall be heard no fewer than eight (8) days and no more than thirteen (13) days following the suspension, absent mutual agreement of the parties or a finding by the hearing officer of extenuating circumstances.
(e)(i)(B) Hearings conducted by the Disciplinary Officer under Section 1(e)(i) will be scheduled to commence within thirty (30) days following the NFL’s transmission of the investigative report and/or law enforcement or court documents forming the basis for review to the player, NFLPA and Disciplinary Officer, except that, during the playing season, the hearing will be scheduled to take place on the fourth Tuesday following the receipt of the investigative report absent mutual agreement of the parties or a finding by the hearing officer of extenuating circumstances. The investigative report shall contain a summary of the evidence found, whether inculpatory or exculpatory.
(e)(i)(C) If unavailability of counsel is the basis for a continuance, a new hearing shall be scheduled on or before the Tuesday following the original hearing date, without exception.
(e)(ii) Discovery.
(e)(ii)(A) In appeals under Section 1(a), the parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits upon which they intend to rely no later than three (3) calendar days prior to the hearing.
(e)(ii)(B) In hearings conducted under Section 1 (e) (i), the NFL shall produce any transcripts or audio recordings of witness interviews, any expert reports and court documents obtained or prepared by the NFL as part of its investigation, and any evidentiary material referenced in the investigative report that was not included as an exhibit at least ten (10) calendar days before the hearing. The parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits upon which they intend to rely that were not previously produced no later than five (5) calendar days prior to the hearing.
(e)(ii)(C) Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.
(e)(iii) Record; Posthearing Briefs. Unless the parties agree otherwise, all hearings conducted under Sections 1(a) and 1(e) of this Article shall be transcribed. Posthearing briefs will not be permitted absent agreement of the NFL and NFLPA or the request of the hearing officer. If permitted, such briefs shall be limited to five pages (single-spaced) and must be filed no later than three (3) business days following the conclusion of the hearing.
Section 3. Time Limits Each of the time limits set forth in this Article may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties or by the hearing officer upon appropriate motion.
Section 4. One Penalty The Commissioner and a Club will not both discipline a player for the same act or conduct. The Commissioner’s disciplinary action will preclude or supersede disciplinary action by any Club for the same act or conduct.
Section 5. Commissioner Exempt Players who are placed by the Commissioner on the Exempt list prior to the determination of discipline and any appeal therefrom under the Personal Conduct Policy will be paid while on the Commissioner Exempt list and credited for the regular and post-season games missed against any suspension ultimately imposed. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, if such a suspension is ultimately imposed, the player must promptly return and shall have no further right to any salary for the games for which he was paid while on the Commissioner Exempt list that were credited to the suspension (i.e., for a number of games no greater than the length of the suspension).
Section 6. Fine Money (a) Fines will be deducted at the rate of no more than $3,500 from each pay period, if sufficient pay periods remain; or, if less than sufficient pay periods remain, the fine will be deducted in equal installments over the number of remaining pay periods. For the 2026–2030 League Years, the amount will increase from a rate of $3,500 to $4,500 from each pay period.
(b) For any fine imposed upon a player under Section 1(b), no amount of the fine will be withheld from the player’s pay pending the outcome of the appeal, except that if: (i) the fine is imposed on or after the thirteenth (13th) week of the regular season; (ii) the player or the NFLPA does not timely appeal; or (iii) the hearing on a fine imposed for conduct occurring through the thirteenth (13th) week of the regular season is delayed by the player or the NFLPA for any reason beyond the time provided for in Section 2(b) of this Article, the full amount of the fine shall be promptly collected.
(c) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties., fine money collected pursuant to this Article shall be allocated as follows: 50% to the Players Assistance Trust and 50% to charitable organizations jointly determined by the NFL and the NFLPA. In the absence of said joint determination, the NFL and the NFLPA shall each determine a charitable organization or organizations to which half of the second 50% shall be allocated.
Section 7. Permitted Activities for Players Suspended Under the Personal Conduct Policy Players who have been placed on Reserve/Commissioner Suspension pursuant to the Personal Conduct Policy will be permitted to attend the club facility and participate in limited activities during the second half of any suspension period on terms substantially similar to the corresponding provisions of the policies on Performance-Enhancing Substances and Substances of Abuse.
It is a privilege to be part of the National Football League. Everyone who is part of the league must refrain from “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in” the NFL. This includes owners, coaches, players, other team employees, game officials, and employees of the league office, NFL Films, NFL Network, or any other NFL business.
Conduct by anyone in the league that is illegal, violent, dangerous, or irresponsible puts innocent victims at risk, damages the reputation of others in the game, and undercuts public respect and support for the NFL. We must endeavor at all times to be people of high character; we must show respect for others inside and outside our workplace; and we must strive to conduct ourselves in ways that favorably reflect on ourselves, our teams, the communities we represent, and the NFL.
The whole reason the whole disciplinary process has changed is because of the unequal treatment perceived (rightly so in my opinion) by the NFLPA between punishment to players and punishment to owners and other NFL Staff. Judge Robinson can't go back and change the punishment of the previous cases...So it can be argued that a heavy punishment is still unfair despite being a new process...
Whatever the punishment will be we’re all losers. Especially the 22+ women and we as Cleveland Brown supporters.
I love the old, "The NFL wasn't harsh enough on sexual abuse before so that should be a great excuse not to do so now. We will use the past to never change or get it right" defense. Priceless.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
The Dan Snyder fine wasn't even a year ago. It's not quite apples-apples, but (IMO) it's comparable enough when you consider the lenient punishment with the previous comment about owners supposed to be held to a higher standard.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
And I understand that point of view. I just don't think it's a sound defense by saying that just because the NFL screwed up before, you should use that as leverage to make them screw up now. I understand the NFLPA will use it. I'm just not sure it will hold water in court if it gets that far. I think every case will be judged by individual merit. Judges do that all the time. If they see one case wasn't judged harshly enough they don't allow that to enter into their judgement on a current case.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I think bringing up the Snyder, Kraft situations is good for convo on here. The NFL is so all over the place in terms of discipline that I don't think they could really surprise us with anything.
I think I stated before that if the NFLPA's defense is literally just a whatabbout'ism, then Watson is screwed. So, legally speaking (if that's the right word) I agree with you. It's a weak defense on its own, just as you said.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
How would you feel if the NFL let the owners get away with rape, while punishing others for Rape?
I would feel they got it wrong with the owners and right with the others. At some point in time a new precedent has to be set to deal with such accusations upon women correctly. In this case there are 24 of them. If not now when? Why do you think it's right to allow watson to get away with it just because you think someone else did? At what point do you suggest that stops? Because if we keep coming up with excuses why it shouldn't, it never will. And those are honest questions to you as well.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
How would you feel if the NFL let the owners get away with rape, while punishing others for Rape?
I would feel they got it wrong with the owners and right with the others. At some point in time a new precedent has to be set to deal with such accusations upon women correctly. In this case there are 24 of them. If not now when? Why do you think it's right to allow watson to get away with it just because you think someone else did? At what point do you suggest that stops? Because if we keep coming up with excuses why it shouldn't, it never will. And those are honest questions to you as well.
Which is the whole point of redoing the PCP in the last contract anyway. I get the "He's a Brown now" narrative and people are looking out for their own team. However, Watson has more alleged sexual assault civil suits against him than has every crossed the desk of the NFL. Not only that but there has been confirmation that there likely will be more coming. If this gets up to 30 different women, when does the precedent get set that this is not acceptable for a player in the NFL? It shouldn't matter what has happened in the past, there's never been a player accused of violating so many women in the NFL. What's the worst thing that can happen? Some will say that it would be horrible if Watson gets a long or indefinite suspension. I say the worst thing that could happen is downplaying Watson's actions and then finding out that he actually did sexually assault the 24 plus women. One man missing a year of football means little if he didn't do what he's accused of compared to downplaying it and finding out next spring and summer that the Browns QB is a serial sexual abuser.
How would you feel if the NFL let the owners get away with rape, while punishing others for Rape?
I would feel they got it wrong with the owners and right with the others. At some point in time a new precedent has to be set to deal with such accusations upon women correctly. In this case there are 24 of them. If not now when? Why do you think it's right to allow watson to get away with it just because you think someone else did? At what point do you suggest that stops? Because if we keep coming up with excuses why it shouldn't, it never will. And those are honest questions to you as well.
Which is the whole point of redoing the PCP in the last contract anyway. I get the "He's a Brown now" narrative and people are looking out for their own team. However, Watson has more alleged sexual assault civil suits against him than has every crossed the desk of the NFL. Not only that but there has been confirmation that there likely will be more coming. If this gets up to 30 different women, when does the precedent get set that this is not acceptable for a player in the NFL? It shouldn't matter what has happened in the past, there's never been a player accused of violating so many women in the NFL. What's the worst thing that can happen? Some will say that it would be horrible if Watson gets a long or indefinite suspension. I say the worst thing that could happen is downplaying Watson's actions and then finding out that he actually did sexually assault the 24 plus women. One man missing a year of football means little if he didn't do what he's accused of compared to downplaying it and finding out next spring and summer that the Browns QB is a serial sexual abuser.
I am getting the same feeling as Breer is. One thing that stood out to me is how the NFL is only presenting 5 of the cases in their argument against Watson. Why only five? Are the others bogus? Do the reek of money-grabbing? Is the case against Watson weak? Is that why Watson's defense team and the Browns have been talking about they are confident that the once the facts come out that Watson will be exonerated? Sue Robinson is a former judge. Will she be perturbed how public the NFL and the plaintiff's attorney has made this case? Will Judge Robinson put stock in how unfair the NFL has been when doling out punishment?
I would love to see all the heads explode from the crucify Watson team if Judge Robinson says there is no punishment. LOL..........that has almost no chance of happening, but it would still be cool to see.
That’s my stance too on this mess. Anything else then a one year suspension is a farce.
A one year suspension is a farce when all the owners get off scott free ... except Snyder who got fined 10 mill. Yet I didn't hear one single damn person bitch and cry about him not getting more on these boards.
I don't have you on ignore, as I have also never had anybody on ignore. We agree on some things and disagree on others just like I do with everybody on the board. I have no problem with those I agree or disagree with around here.
I’ve been wrong many times in my life (…today) but I can’t see a scenario where he gets zero games. Nope. There would have to be some serious and deep back room shenanigans going on for that to happen.
I also suspect the top end is unlikely, the open ended suspension. I’m still betting it’s a year and firm. We’ll see of course. None of us have a vote.
Who’s gonna put the poll together? I’m too lazy. But it’s all we can do at this point, arguing about what’s going to happen is stupid.
"Team Chemistry No Match for Team Biology" (Onion Sports Headline)
Where I work there are a handful of Bear fans,Packer fans,Raider fans,Bengal fans and Steelers fans.. And talking with them there is not much interest or hate towards DW, actually most of them think it's over blown and that includes the woman fans.
I live literally a 5 minute walk from the NFL HOF, I walked over to the area for the USFL play-off games, was in the bars and around so many people and fans of other teams, and no-one made a big deal about the DW situation.
I was wearing my Browns shirt and talked football to many fans including women and most of the conversation was them saying Browns got a good team put together and I heard no one say anything awful about DW !
No one said how can you be a Browns fan having DW as your QB , not one mention like that at all.
Seems like only the media and some Browns fans have the hate, the typical football fans outside of Cleveland seem like they don't care, at least the area I'm in. Might be different where some of you are located.
The whole world in general is a mess, can't expect it to be perfect in the NFL. It's a messy situation and it will be resolved and life will move on. People are not perfect and I do not judge because I'm far from perfect.
Some support DW and some don't. I support the Browns and it's that simple. There very well could be players doing worse things that haven't got called out for it. Just like members on this board, people in general. Some of you who act so righteous should look back on your lives and judge yourself.
I'm going to let this all play out and however it turns out it turns out and I have no control of that.
Staying a Browns fan because that's what I want to do !
The Breer thing is really interesting. Federal judges don't take kindly to things being judged in the court of public opinion...But whether or not the NFL is worried is just supposition on his part.
It did occur to me...Judge Robinson is the FIRST neutral position of authority who will receive ALL of the information to this point. The Grand Juries only got a couple cases. The NFL is not neutral in this and is playing a PR game. They need a large suspension because they are playing the court of public opinion. But Judge Robinson doesn't play that game.
So for me...I believe I will put the most credence in her ruling concerning this whole situation. I think I will be happy with whatever she decides. If she brings down a sledge hammer...Then I say good...He probably deserved it...I would hope there is more coming.
If she says No penalty...well yeah I would be happy as a Browns Fan...But I would think we all would need to re-examine how we handle these situations. Maybe it will open a dialogue that is desperately needed in this country...And not about innocent until proven guilty...although that would be another topic...But rather the social situation we have built where no one knows what the rules for consent are.(men AND women)
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
The Breer thing is really interesting. Federal judges don't take kindly to things being judged in the court of public opinion...But whether or not the NFL is worried is just supposition on his part.
I think it's more along the lines of court of public opinion getting led around by the nostrils. Hardin was on the receiving end of a masterclass in working the case through the media. For every article highlighting the biased (and highly questionable) mindset of the investigator, there was an HBO special talking about what a monster Watson is. I'm not sure if you can point to anything in particular and call that a lie, but there's a reason why in an actual court you hear from both sides, and both sides are allowed to object to nonsense from the other side. You don't (can't) do that via articles and interviews. Trying to put myself in Sue Robinson's shoes, I could see her being all like, "slow your roll, people... I'll make the decisions here because I basically the first person that's going to handle this like an adult (in terms of the NFL discipline angle)".
That said, I do agree that the argument for no discipline is a terrible look. Personal conduct policy is a different animal from civil/federal law. How anyone can say with a straight face that he deserves no punishment after this whole saga is honestly kinda hilarious (in a sorta 'if you don't laugh you'll cry' way).
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
--I agree that the Watson thing is not getting a ton of run w/most people I come across. Heck, a large percentage of my family and friends are Steeler fans. They are not making a big deal about Watson's alleged crimes. They are worried about him playing for us. I was doing a quote the other day and the homeowners were Steeler fans and we were joking back and forth. I mentioned Watson and the woman of the home said something about how they had Ben. We all talked about it not being our job to try people and that it's a game we watch for entertainment purposes. I think there is a certain segment of Baker fans that are displaying a faux outrage on the Watson situation in the hopes of Baker staying w/the Browns. I do think there are guys like cfrs who is not a Baker fan and is still disgusted by Watson. But, I look at the those who are protesting the most and they are Baker fans. I get they want Baker to stay, but I don't think that will happen. So, what then?
--I can't Judge Robinson ruling for no punishment at all. However, I do think it is going to be a lot shorter than many are hoping for.
--The fact that the NFL is only highlighting the cases of 5 women is huge in my eyes. It could very well be an indicator of many false allegations. Of course, five is still a lot. But, there was no rape and other alleged rapists have gotten off pretty easy. Was Kobe even suspended? What did Ben end up with? 4 games? What Watson is accused of is not nearly bad as rape.
Yeah...I used the no punishment as the opposite extreme example...She really is the first to neutrally hear both sides of the story...and with her seemingly no nonsense record (based on just the very few articles I have read)...I think as far as my personal thoughts concerning this situation. Her decisions and comments will carry the most weight for me...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
How would you feel if the NFL let the owners get away with rape, while punishing others for Rape?
You weren't asking me, but if you did, I'd say there is no difference between an Owner or Player.. If the offense is the same, they both need treated exactly the same.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
