DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Watson: Getcha Popcorn

I'm sure some do, most don't.



My mob is pretty small which I believe by definition wouldn't make it a mob at all.

j/c:

My conversations with non-Browns fans actually go more with what Rish is saying (and I'm not even outside of OH). Most non-football following folks aren't weren't even aware of any of the particulars regarding Watson beyond something was going on. None, not even Bengals fans, even knew the full Robinson report was available, much less read it. Small sample size, but that has been my experience (fwiw).

So with the browns saying Watson is going to start Friday, that kinda pushes the NFL to make their move before that

"I really hope there is a point in our future when Deshaun "makes amends". I think he's a pig. But there is no way for me to throw away football, throw away a lifetime of bleeding the colors, throw away the annual childlike optimism for a great season (which is already all-but-ruined this season)... and then try to tiptoe around my enthusiasm for sport? Probably not. I come to sport to avoid all that bs.

Sorry for the rant."

^

Quote from you.

You and I have had lots of talks inside and outside the stadium. Remember how upset we would both be after a loss ? The atmosphere and feelings of all the Browns fans, disappointment ! anger ! ya know and you all know the emotions after loss after loss.

Us fans aren't the only ones who feel that way. Players, coaches, staff and ownership all feel how we do !

The organization felt they had to change that for all !

We all know what that was, right or wrong, no-one at this moment knowing how it will all turn out, feels the same feelings most all of us did after a loss.

A move was made, it can't be changed. We can all express our feelings on this now. It's going to be a lot of wait and see, always has been. An effort was taken to take away the walking out as losers feeling.

want that as we all do to go away. We all want to feel the hell yes this team is a winning team.

A move was made, in chess, it can take a bit to see the result of that move.

Right or wrong, all feelings of all involved, meaning ownership down to fan base your feelings my feelings and everyone on this board feelings !

The goal is to put a winning team in place.

Morals ? I don't always look at how a man or woman act towards each other, I see fans acting in such hateful ways of each other yet it continues at every sport event.

Respect towards another human being, no matter sex color beliefs it will always end up with someone judging another.

I don't post much on this subject because I have people on here that I like and respect. It's not my place to tell them that the way they feel, different or the same as mine is wrong or right.

A friendship will last longer than a player on a team I root for, Hopefully !

Emotions and feelings bring out the best and worst of all of us ! Saying winning is more important than respecting a person, just being a fan of anything throws that out the door, that includes religious and government views.

Life is a challenge, every part of it !

I hope all of you at the end of this can somehow realize life will go on, no matter your opinion your judgement or your feelings are.

JC... for all of us ! Treat someone special ! Spend time with a loved one or a new acquaintance or someone you don't know. enjoy life ! It's short ! Don't judge ! We have no control of what is going on with this situation or any situation we face in life !

The only person who can allow a situation or person to effect the way you feel is .... YOU !!

Hope you all can find some peace and comfort over a situation that is out of your control ! Speak on it ! don't speak harm to others !

The suspension only applies to regular season games.

If it's indefinite, it is immediately and applies to preseason also. If he only changes the number of game by adding or subtracting to it, then this is true.

So I would love to here the opinion of 05 Peen and Frank as they have some of the most legal knowledge I have read in these threads.

I want to take Watson's actions completely out of the equation...no emotion...just looking at the judgement as written, this appeal process, the options available to the NFLPA. Because believe it or not...I think there is a bigger issue here for the NFLPA than what Watson did or did not do...

It was argued in one article posted here that The NFLPA has nothing it can sue on...Because of the CBA that was negotiated. Also I am surprised to hear crickets from the NFLPA right now...

But I figure they have several things they can take to federal court in the case of a large increase in penalty

1. They can argue that the NFL has not negotiated in good faith in the creation of the CBA as the NFL has all the power it wants and there is no benefit to the players.
2. There is a bias in the designated appointee hearing the appeal. He is known to be in the NFL pocket (in short) and is aligned with several organizations bolstering women who have been violently and sexually assaulted. It can be argued that there is a conflict of interest when performing the appeal.(This didn't work for Brady nor Elliot...but would not be heard in those circuit courts I understand)
3. The argument provided by Judge Robinson saying that the NFL needed to inform players that nonviolent acts would be treated as harshly or harsher than violent acts. Saying the NFL is in the same boat as they were with Ray Rice and why they could not suspend him more than the 2 games.
4. The definition of Sexual Assault defined at the time of the hearing and by an investigator. So hear me out...Watson was found likely by preponderance of evidence to have committed violations on 3 points. First Sexual Assault...Point Two was endangering a human being based upon Point 1 of Sexual Assault...and Point three that these actions broke the conduct policy. Well with the extremely loose and arguably biased definition that was given...It could be argued that with a better definition more in line with State Laws...that he did not break point one, which both point 2 and 3 were based upon. The NFL pushed for "Sexual Assault", not "Sexual Battery", not "Sexual Misconduct", not "Indecent Exposure". They pushed for "Sexual Assault"...I think that is an important point. He was found guilty on that point by the flimsiest of definitions. Also a definition after the fact...similar to the Ray Rice precedent on Punishment...there was no informing the players on the definition of Assault, or the difference between violent and non violent acts and how they would be disciplined.
5. Lastly, I think they can argue the discrepancy between the treatment of Owners vs Players when it comes to discipline (I think the Dolphins stuff was orchestrated specifically to argue against this...the timing is ridiculous)

Again, I am not arguing Watson's actions...The amount of games is irrelevant to the discussion aside from the precedence cited. I am interested in the process that is going on and the legal ramifications. Heck, the appeal hasn't been decided upon yet...we don't know if he is looking for a number that will make both sides move on...or if he is just going to give the NFL what they want...or if he is going to uphold the suspension as is...(it "possible" but extremely unlikely that he reduces the punishment) It is a great unknown. But considering he brings down a sledge hammer...What do you think the options are for the NFLPA and\or Watson?

Good question. That’s a lot to chew on. I’ll try to get back more later with a longer post. The short answer would be that they’d have a huge uphill battle in court, but most of it would likely center around point 1 you brought above, to be bolstered by the first time the arbitrator was used wherein the NFL appealed, especially if they significantly alter the suspension, and then sprinkle in some arguments about the disparity between players and owners, the lack of defining things in a forward looking direction, and the general reactionist conduct post-facto. All that can be packaged into point number one.

I brought up point 1 several days ago.

Two standards might be looked at.

The first is reasonableness. Did the NFL uphold it's end of the bargain?

The second is reasonableness, but intent is also considered. What is considered there is did the NFL ever intend to bargain in a reasonable manner and knew it had no reasonable cause for it's actions?

That will be the hard part, but with Judge Robinsons decision, she spoke to the NFL's lack of structure and continuity in past decisions which could provide the crack in the door for the NFLPA.

All said and done, there is really no telling which tact the NFLPA might take if they indeed do elect to sue. The new ruling might add a couple of games and some fine to which Watson might just agree.

Just from a fan perspective, I would rather get all of this out of the way this year. Bumping this to Federal Court would likely delay any suspension in to next year or mid season, possibly spanning over two seasons.

These might help in the understanding of the NFLPA legal options:

https://leagueofjustice.com/the-big...ly-not-suing-nfl-over-watson-suspension/

https://leagueofjustice.com/why-nei...re-realistic-options-for-deshaun-watson/

https://leagueofjustice.com/the-ful...-reasoning-on-deshaun-watson-suspension/

Who's going to benefit and who has most to lose if the NFLPA appeal NFL's new suspension?

DSW?
The Browns?
NFL?
NFLPA?

Principles and justice is always a good thing but in the end someone will pay the price when a dispute is infected by other ingredients than just the legal process.

j/c:

I expect Harvey's decision will be made public either today or early tomorrow. I expect the penalty to be harsh. Baker fans will rejoice and Browns fans will be depressed yet again.

You never know. The ruling by Robinson may temper his decision. I think that is why this "expedited" matter is taking so long.

Thanks guys, I appreciate the opinions...For me...at least right now....This has become less about Watson and more with about the process and the VERY dangerous precedence this is setting for future players. Watson is just an example or a piece of evidence in that light. But the lack of motion (or apparent motion) on the part of the NFLPA is concerning. We haven't heard a peep from DeMaurice Smith through this entire process. My thoughts are not about Watson or "getting him off"...It is about this fairness of this process. The NFL is acting towards the CBA as lettered. But those letters are EXTREMELY skewed in power to the NFL.

Contrary to your belief, the only person that keeps Mayfield's name and/or association with anything to do with the Browns or Watson on this board is you Vers. Anyone who disagrees with your "turn the other way" mentality of holding Watson accountable for his own actions and only his actions are either a Baker fan, part of the mob mentality, anti-Cleveland, or a racist. Believe it or not, this group you somehow think you have a right to label, are equally as much of a fan and depressed as much as you are about the state of the Browns. The only difference is we put our morals ahead of winning at all costs and are disgusted that the most prolific predator with such egregious behavior in the history of the NFL could be the face of the franchise without being held accountable at the highest level for his outrageous behavior in the treatment of women. Due to the Browns decision makers, us fans will now have to stomach an unknown number of games stepping back in skill set at the most critical position on the team. Instead of having a top tier QB due to very poor planning, we will be taking a serious step back at the position and have a QB leading the team that is getting his 4th opportunity to lead a franchise after failing miserably in his 3 prior attempts.

Vers, not jumping on your bandwagon of support of Watson no matter what doesn't make you the executor of who's a loyal Browns fan or not. In fact, checking your morals at the door for winning at any cost could be considered a lack of loyalty to the brand of the Cleveland Browns. In any case, those you have self-righteously decided to exclude are probably more depressed as to the circumstances that has brought us all to this point as real Browns fans than you are my friend.

j/c:

So the guy who was linked to frequenting an establishment accused of participating in the illegal sex trade and not being punished at all by the NFL is now calling the 6-game suspension "an embarrassment?" The NFL owners are out of touch w/reality. Here is the text, but the tweets are easier to read if you follow the link.

I'm guessing the decision was made up awhile ago. The days of waiting for the Harvey ruling are simply optics to make it seem like they took a judicious route to their appeal process and determination.

Pretty well known thing,, The law is different for the filthy rich

So just so I understand you correctly...precedence is OK when concerning the disparity of treatment of "filthy rich" vs players...But it is not OK when considering the punishment towards Watson. I don't want to put words in your mouth...I am just going by memory and tone(neither may be correct when it comes to my brain lately...lol) of previous posts that you were on the side that the penalty to Watson is too light and needs to be increased. Please correct me if I don't have that right.

I do "feel" that this is a perspective taken by people...even if unconsciously...

On the day the suspension was announced, I was sitting at the counter and reading NFL news on my phone while my wife was cooking dinner.

She said "What's going on in your NFL today" (She is not a football fan). I said, "Watson got suspended 6 games." Her response, "Who is Watson?", "He's our QB we just got." i replied. Her response "So that's a bad thing then? What did he do to get suspended?"

Regarding point 1... I definitely agree with this, but at the end of the day would they just be yelling at clouds? They signed on the new CBA same as the NFL did. The policy is spelled out and they followed what everyone agreed to. The only thing that speaks to negotiating in bad faith is the appointment of Harvey (used him before, and everything else kinda calls into question his unbaised-ness).

We all sign agreements that take power from us...Consider your mortgage...or apps for your phone...these things are hardly negotiable. But...that does not mean the agreement is fair and/or negotiated in good faith. We still sign them and from time to time, some of these agreements have been taken to court and to be found in fault...And by ignoring the first judgement passed down by this process...it can be argued that the NFL is not practicing in good faith nor negotiated in good faith. It could be argued that they decided from day one to bypass the "fair" portion of the process. Also in many negotiations sides compromise in order to get a deal done. Perhaps the NFL would not back down on final authority...ever. We don't know the negotiations that took place...But those processes could be brought up that in negotiating the CBA, that by refusing to not have final authority, the NFL did not ultimately change the process to one that was more fair and therefore negotiated outside of good faith.

Just throwing that perspective out there...

"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."

The important part of the contract language states that the Commissioner or his designee will issue the written decision. There is nothing in writing that says the designee must meet NFLPA approval and/or deemed as unbiased. There is no contract language that spells the selection process of the designee. To be frank, the designee is nothing more than an extension arm of the Commissioner as negotiated by the two parties and ratified.

Having spent years dealing in labor management with a union contract in place, I can tell you that good faith negotiation between two parties where they come to an agreement that is then ratified via a membership vote is binding and extremely difficult to challenge in any court. Unless there is something specific within the contract that violates state or federal law (highly unlikely since both sides use contract lawyers) or there's a clear "breach of contract" which only pertains to the current contract and has no bearing what happened under previous deals, the NFLPA would be hard pressed to get any judge to issue an injunction to something they freely negotiated. Basically, they can't say now after the fact, that they don't like the process or results on something they negotiated and that was ratified by vote of the membership.

Yes, they could rule him done at any point

Let's go a little further. There are 32 teams in the NFL. The Browns are one. So you don't think most football fans are following this story? Anyone watching any sports related shows have heard Robinson's finding. I grew up and lived in the Dayton area and there are a lot of Bengals fans there. Those younger than myself grew up as Bengal fans. There were no Bengals when I became a Browns fan. They've been talking to me about it non stop.

And while I'm here......

Source: One-year suspension for Browns' Deshaun Watson a 'slam dunk'

It's looking more and more like the six-game suspension initially recommended for Cleveland Browns star quarterback Deshaun Watson by disciplinary officer Sue L. Robinson regarding allegations of sexual misconduct during massage sessions isn't going to stick.

One day after NFL commissioner Roger Goodell confirmed the league asked appeals officer and former New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey to ban Watson for one year, it was reported that the league wants such a punishment to begin immediately and, thus, make the 26-year-old ineligible to participate in Friday's preseason opener at the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Meanwhile, two individuals have told Pro Football Network's Aaron Wilson that Harvey, who has "an extensive background in prosecuting domestic violence and sexual assault cases," will likely drop a severe punishment on Watson sooner than later. One source went so far as to call it a "slam dunk" that Watson will receive a one-year suspension, while another thinks the three-time Pro Bowl selection could make his official Browns debut before Christmas.

"I know they’re going for the full year, but I could see Harvey doubling the suspension to 12 games and going for the $8 million fine or more and the requirement of treatment," that second source explained. "It really falls in line with Harvey’s background, with wanting to continue to be associated with the NFL and the public outcry against Watson."

Browns head coach Kevin Stefanski has repeatedly insisted that backup Jacoby Brissett will start any games during the 2022 season that Watson misses because of a suspension. There is currently zero indication that Cleveland is interested in available San Francisco 49ers veteran Jimmy Garoppolo, who has been replaced as his team's starter by 2021 rookie Trey Lance.

https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/arti...1vCaW2Z4mvhaQ8TtoIqHtYZahkcFfuaQb_dvG-Lo

This is fake. Reflog posted this as a joke. It's what he does on Twitter. Kraft did not say this.

This is what it looks like when someone tries to deflect away from the actual topic at hand. It's a simpleton response.

I live in Cinci and work in the Dayton area. Most that I've talked to were aware of allegations against Deshaun, but that's it (didn't know the number, or any of the other stuff beyond that like Houston's involvement, and weren't really following the unfolding story of the suspension).

Just my experience living slightly outside of Browns local market.

Smart people listen to advice from those with experience and wisdom.

Chris Simms is not one of those people.

I am not a legal expert, I just read opinions and briefs as a hobby, or to understand situations better.

Speaking to point 4; it has always appeared from my experience that words in law do not always mean what words in common usage mean. This is why in laws or executive interpretations of law there are definitions. The CBA is a legally binding document and should be held to a similar standard. In this case the CBA did not define what sexual assault consists of, this is a failing in the document and while both sides signed it, the interpretation on boths sides could be vastly different. Typically the legal definition of assault is predicated on use or, or threat of, force. The report issued by Robinson specifically stated there was no evidence of force in the 4 cases brought in front of her. Since the term was not defined prior to the incidents it would be reasonable to expect the prevailing definition in TX to hold sway and the incidents occurred there. Instead the NFL investigators issued a definition during the hearings that did not include force. This, to me, seems to be an attempt to make the facts fit a desired conclusion. It isn't a secret going into all this the NFL was wanting an indefinite suspension.

I think the NFL side of the hearing was in bad faith, they had a foregone conclusion they wanted, and they would not let the process get in the way of this. I cannot believe the new arbitrator will decide anything less than Goodell is looking for.

Dawglover05 is the actual attorney and has stated that a court appeal after this will be an uphill challenge and I won't attempt to dispute that. I and interested in seeing what the strategy will be in that process. I would think part of it might hinge on the lack of an existing definition and accepted definitions of what assault consists of. I don't think an appeal based on the idea that the NFL basically ignored the decision Robinson came to or her findings will be a strong case.

If they can show the definition or the issuing of the definition is inappropriate that would, from my understanding, invalidate the second and third findings since they are really based on the first. All of it is a long shot at this point I would think.

Thanks for the correction. No wonder it rang so tone deaf.

What is sexual assault?

Sexual assault happens when someone touches another person in a sexual manner without their consent. Or when someone makes another person take part in a sexual activity with them without that person's consent. It includes unwanted kissing and sexual touching.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/types-of-sexual-violence/what-is-sexual-assault/

How is sexual assault defined in the US?
The term sexual assault refers to sexual contact or behavior that occurs without explicit consent of the victim. Some forms of sexual assault include: Attempted rape. Fondling or unwanted sexual touching. Forcing a victim to perform sexual acts, such as oral sex or penetrating the perpetrator's body.

https://www.rainn.org/articles/sexual-assault

Sexual Assault: Definition

Specific laws vary by state, but sexual assault generally refers to any crime in which the offender subjects the victim to sexual touching that is unwanted and offensive. These crimes can range from sexual groping or assault/battery, to attempted rape. All states prohibit this type of assault but the exact definitions of the crimes that fall within the category of sexual assault differ from state to state. The laws share some basic elements, but the structures, wording and scope of offenses vary considerably, so always check your local statutes for specific questions.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/sexual-assault-overview.html

What you are arguing is that the NFL used a very common legal definition of what sexual assault means.

j/c: