Originally Posted by mgh888
Originally Posted by FATE
Originally Posted by oobernoober
There's another way to look at that as well. According to some of the summaries, Robinson used the same threshold as what would be used in a civil trial. So the assumption is that if Watson's civil cases ever went to trial, he'd probably be found guilty (at least in 4 of the cases).

I'd argue that you're unfairly leaping past the point that all language was defined by the NFL, and the judge was bound by their "post-hoc definitions". That would be a pretty early box on the flowchart that may prevent predicting what would happen in a court of law. Is it possible his actions would even reach a level of "sexual assault" in many venues?

Just my opinion - but I think it's more than reasonable that Robinson would not have included the language about Watson (possibly) deserving a harsher judgement - but that the letter of NFL policy and precedent (seems to have) prevented her from handing out a stiffer penalty..... Unless she felt that Watson's actions did indeed go beyond the level of 'Assault' in a civil court. Sue Robinson was pretty damning with what she said about Watson, I don't think she based that criticism only on a low threshold of NFL policy ... where the policy impacted her decision, ruling and findings she seemed to spell that out.

More than reasonable? First, I'm not saying it's a terrible opinion, I'm sure many share it. However (although unintentional) it's basically cherry-picking a statement out of the context of a very different thought process and explanation. Reading the entire paragraph, I feel like it is an indictment of the league's inept process much more than the level of Deshaun's guilt. JMO

I am bound “by standards of fairness and consistency of treatment among players
similarly situated.” The NFL argues that consistency is not possible, because there are no
similarly-situated players. By ignoring past decisions because none involve “similar” conduct,
however, the NFL is not just equating violent conduct with non-violent conduct, but has elevated
the importance of the latter without any substantial evidence to support its position.
While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct,
I do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this
position portends for the NFL and its players.