I think she was in bed with the NFL from the very beginning and not only welcomed the appeal but cued it up for the NFL.
1. She told them a month ago what the outcome would be allowing them to get a head start on preparing the appeal. I think also this had Watson's team let their guard down somewhat. I bet they are scrambling.
2. She wrote the ruling in a way to support an appeal by the NFL.
3. I think the only reason she didn't give him more games was due to her belief that her ruling had to be bound by past punishments, but she wanted to give more.
It was basically a sham. I agree that the NFL should have accepted it, but I don't think that Robinson cares. I thought she would before the ruling came out, but I think she's on the side of the NFL.
If I were the NFLPA, I would be pretty livid, but this is what they agreed to. They're idiots. It's their own fault.
1. She told both sides a month ago. I think this lends credence to the theory of her trying to get them to come to a settlement.
2. This has been argued both ways. Part of her report was detailing how the conduct policy is a joke and a sham, and the NFL practically took that as marching orders.
3. I think she did want to give more but within the bounds of the process/contract, she could not. This is the weird part for me. If your designated officer says this is what the process allows you to do, and your response is to toss out her decision and put it in the hands of the guy who helped write and construct the old policy that this one was supposed to fix... then yes, it's absolutely a sham.
