PDA

View Full Version : Vilma, players associated with "Bounty Scandal" COULD SEE SUSPENSIONS NULLIFIED


Ronnie Tsunami
05-04-2012, 05:34 AM
Andrew Brandt, ESPN's Business analyst, just got off ESPN's Mike & Mike.

HUGE news regarding the Bountygate scandal.

The NFLPA has filed a grievance vs. the NFL challenging Commissioner Goodell's authority to suspend the four players he did. More to come.

What's the NFLPA's argument?

The argument is that the new CBA, which was signed at the Hall of Fame August 4, 2011, has a provision in there that clearly states that the commissioner cannot levy discipline against conduct PRIOR TO THE CBA. You have the CBA Aug. 4, 2011, and then you have bounty gate WAY before. So anything before Aug. 4, this grievance says, is immune to the commissioner ruling against it.

Even if that argument fails, the NFPA argues that bountygate shouldn't be in front of Goodell. It should be in front of Ted Cottrell and Art Shell, who are designated parties to hear what goes on ON-THE-FIELD, esp. these big, violent hits.

Their strategy all along is to get this out of Goodell's control, and it appears as if they will be able to.

This is a paraphrase of Andrew Brandt, who again is on Mike and Mike right now.

i4jelway7
05-04-2012, 06:24 AM
wow this could get interesting

eddie mac
05-04-2012, 06:35 AM
So the NFLPA who also represents the players who were targetted by Williams and his players are now defending these bums. What a ****ing joke of an organisation.

Garcia Bronco
05-04-2012, 06:38 AM
So the NFLPA who also represents the players who were targetted by Williams and his players are now defending these bums. What a ****ing joke of an organisation.

That's a union.

Ray Finkle
05-04-2012, 06:39 AM
a big ol' bucket of meh on this one.

Kaylore
05-04-2012, 06:45 AM
a big ol' bucket of meh on this one.

Yeah. The NFL will just point out the meetings and payments all happened off the field and that these suspensions are for actions off the field, not on.

Captain 'Dre
05-04-2012, 06:54 AM
So the NFLPA who also represents the players who were targetted by Williams and his players are now defending these bums. What a ****ing joke of an organisation.

Couldn't agree more.

I can just hear DeMo Smith now:

"Not so fast, Mr. Commissioner... As head of the Players' Union, I will vigorously defend the rights of my Union members to deliberately injure other members of my Union!"

The whole debacle gets more sickening by the moment. ugh!~

BroncoBeavis
05-04-2012, 07:00 AM
That's a union.

One of the biggest things wrong with many modern unions, and you talk to those big union guys and they just don't understand that they're cutting their own throats with this stuff.

They tend to knee-jerk themselves into defending the indefensible.

BroncoBen
05-04-2012, 07:07 AM
Couldn't agree more.

I can just hear DeMo Smith now:

"Not so fast, Mr. Commissioner... As head of the Players' Union, I will vigorously defend the rights of my Union members to deliberately injure other members of my Union!"

The whole debacle gets more sickening by the moment. ugh!~

No kidding... this could get strung out for awhile.

fontaine
05-04-2012, 07:13 AM
If this is correct:

The argument is that the new CBA, which was signed at the Hall of Fame Aug 4, has a provision in there that says the commissioner cannot levy discipline against conduct PRIOR TO THE CBA. You have the CBA Aug. 4, 2011, and then you have bounty gate WAY before. So anything before Aug. 4, this grievance says, is immune to the commissioner ruling against it.

then this makes Goodell look like a real clown who doesn't know the restrictions/limitations of his own responsibilities.

peacepipe
05-04-2012, 07:15 AM
That's a union.

yes, a union that is making sure goodell isn't going to far in its ruling. The NFLPA leadership is doing the job its paid to do.

BroncoBeavis
05-04-2012, 07:22 AM
yes, a union that is making sure goodell isn't going to far in its ruling. The NFLPA leadership is doing the job its paid to do.

Funny, since I thought workplace safety was one of the (if not THE) leading stated objectives of this labor union.

If they do somehow get this into their realm, they'd better dole out punishment just as harsh as the Commish, or they're going to become a national joke. All in the midst of them making a huge issue of the long-term effects of player injury. Really stupid timing if they intervene for a handful of thugs.

Captain 'Dre
05-04-2012, 07:23 AM
yes, a union that is making sure goodell isn't going to far in its ruling. The NFLPA leadership is doing the job its paid to do.

IMO, the NFLPA is bring a nuclear weapon to a water pistol fight.

schaaf
05-04-2012, 07:25 AM
and wasn't there bounties and stuff that finally pushed the NFL over the edge this season in the playoffs? Williams was talking about the 49ers playoff game??? Thats under the new CBA

peacepipe
05-04-2012, 07:25 AM
IMO, the NFLPA is bring a nuclear weapon to a water pistol fight.

they don't stand up to this now, they won't have any credibility to stand against anything in the future. this should be in front of art shell not goodell.

BroncoBeavis
05-04-2012, 07:30 AM
they don't stand up to this now, they won't have any credibility to stand against anything in the future. this should be in front of art shell not goodell.

Sorry but the jokes write themselves.

Aww, if only Tonya Harding had been a member of the National Figure Skaters' Alliance. :)

gyldenlove
05-04-2012, 07:32 AM
Funny, since I thought workplace safety was one of the (if not THE) leading stated objectives of this labor union.

If they do somehow get this into their realm, they'd better dole out punishment just as harsh as the Commish, or they're going to become a national joke. All in the midst of them making a huge issue of the long-term effects of player injury. Really stupid timing if they intervene for a handful of thugs.

Not surprisingly you think completely wrong. The leading objective for the NFLPA is to negotiate a CBA with the NFL in the best interest of the players and to ensure the NFL does not violate said CBA.

peacepipe
05-04-2012, 07:33 AM
Funny, since I thought workplace safety was one of the (if not THE) leading stated objectives of this labor union.

If they do somehow get this into their realm, they'd better dole out punishment just as harsh as the Commish, or they're going to become a national joke. All in the midst of them making a huge issue of the long-term effects of player injury. Really stupid timing if they intervene for a handful of thugs.

the NFLPA is going through this because goodell went to far in his suspensions,so obviously there is not going to be an equally severe punishment. it would be a waste of time & money to go through all this just to levi out the same punishment.safety is an objective but not the only one.
everywhere I read or watched on TV expected no more than an 8 game suspension at the worst. this,IMO,has more to do with making sure goodell is put in check in regards to over resching.

gyldenlove
05-04-2012, 07:33 AM
Oh, just FYI, Gregg Williams has nothing to do with the CBA, the CBA only covers relations between the NFL and its players - coaches, especially assistant coaches are under very different rules.

peacepipe
05-04-2012, 07:34 AM
Sorry but the jokes write themselves.

Aww, if only Tonya Harding had been a member of the National Figure Skaters' Alliance. :)

apples & oranges

BroncoBeavis
05-04-2012, 07:35 AM
Not surprisingly you think completely wrong. The leading objective for the NFLPA is to negotiate a CBA with the NFL in the best interest of the players and to ensure the NFL does not violate said CBA.

Great, so the whole push for benefits for former players is crap. Because, hey, they shouldda put it in the CBA back then if it was such a big deal.

Ronnie Tsunami
05-04-2012, 07:36 AM
Oh, just FYI, Gregg Williams has nothing to do with the CBA, the CBA only covers relations between the NFL and its players - coaches, especially assistant coaches are under very different rules.

noted in the change of the thread title

gyldenlove
05-04-2012, 07:38 AM
Great, so the whole push for benefits for former players is crap. Because, hey, they shouldda put it in the CBA back then if it was such a big deal.

There is a reason the former players are suing both the NFL and NFLPA - you work out what that reason is.

Jay3
05-04-2012, 07:44 AM
Either way, it gets addressed. They don't get amnesty, it's a procedural objection raised.

And the NFL has once again flanked the players -- positioning itself as the one that's being tougher on injury-causing issues. This move will undermine the drumbeat the ex-players are trying to create for their lawsuit.

At every turn, the NFL is more responsible and strict on injury issues than players are, and the union itself.

Dedhed
05-04-2012, 07:46 AM
Not surprisingly you think completely wrong. The leading objective for the NFLPA is to negotiate a CBA with the NFL in the best interest of the players.
Do you really not see the irony here?

Garcia Bronco
05-04-2012, 07:49 AM
yes, a union that is making sure goodell isn't going to far in its ruling. The NFLPA leadership is doing the job its paid to do.

Protect players that were creating an unsafe work environment? Get real. It's laughable at best.

Kaylore
05-04-2012, 07:53 AM
If this is correct:



then this makes Goodell look like a real clown who doesn't know the restrictions/limitations of his own responsibilities.

It's true - for actions on the field. The NFLPA is going to try to argue that they are being disciplined for trying to injure people on the field. The NFL is just going flip it back and say its for the collusion to injure players, which all evidence shows the meetings, bounties, payments, etc. all occurred off the field.

And the irony isn't lost on me.

BroncoBeavis
05-04-2012, 08:01 AM
apples & oranges

Jokes don't care.

Bronco Yoda
05-04-2012, 08:02 AM
I thought Goodell was pretty fair about the whole thing all things considering. He could have gone after everyone involved instead of just the ringleaders.

Lestat
05-04-2012, 08:05 AM
So the NFLPA who also represents the players who were targetted by Williams and his players are now defending these bums. What a ****ing joke of an organisation.

except all the players who were targeted and asked about it said what "that's football." from Favre, to Warner to the others.

BroncoBeavis
05-04-2012, 08:08 AM
There is a reason the former players are suing both the NFL and NFLPA - you work out what that reason is.

I'm not saying the NFL shouldn't provide more benefits for those players suffering from career-induced injuries. I think they make more than enough cash to make sure former players get treatment.

But the rationale for suing the NFL is that the league should have done more to stop or alleviate injury and that players didn't understand what they were really being subjected to. The NFLPA is on board with this argument.

For them to go on the record defending people who INTENTIONALLY injured or attempted to injure other players flies in the face of their dispute with the NFL regarding former players. There's no other way to cut it. If the players' association is on board with players targeting other players, it's hard to fault the NFL for the end result.

Heyneck
05-04-2012, 08:11 AM
No kidding... this could get strung out for awhile.

Dude!!! Love your avatars!!! Keep them coming!!!

Garcia Bronco
05-04-2012, 08:12 AM
except all the players who were targeted and asked about it said what "that's football." from Favre, to Warner to the others.

While I agree with them....those players don't get to make this decision. I thought the punishment was too severe for the coaches involved and Vilma, but the Commish has to make a decision that best suits the NFL. Not a few players and coaches.

manchambo
05-04-2012, 08:47 AM
How could this be true? If the CBA really says (and means) that, then a player could tell the newspaper that he used steroids throughout the 2010 season and the NFL could take no action against him. Why would the commissioner agree to that, and why would the union even want it?

Edit--just saw Kaylore's post clarifying the limitation is only for discipline for on the field conduct. That makes a lot more sense. And it shows that the union's challenge is an absolute joke. Did Vilma plan, collect money for and pay bounties on the field? Because that's what he was (rightfully) suspended for.

Further edit: I just read the ESPN story on this and the union apparently argues that only the arbitrator has authority to punish this behavior. I hope the arbitrator agrees, and doubles all the suspensions. It would serve this joke of a union right.

peacepipe
05-04-2012, 08:58 AM
While I agree with them....those players don't get to make this decision. I thought the punishment was too severe for the coaches involved and Vilma, but the Commish has to make a decision that best suits the NFL. Not a few players and coaches.

hence the grievance,goodell has to follow the rules set by the CBA. goodell is not exempt from it. these action took place on the field. off the field is more about getting a dui/getting arrested.

manchambo
05-04-2012, 09:00 AM
hence the grievance,goodell has to follow the rules set by the CBA. goodell is not exempt from it. these action took place on the field. off the field is more about getting a dui/getting arrested.

Which actions took place on the field. Did anyone ever see Vilma pay someone a bounty on the field? Where did he keep the money? I don't think those uniforms have pockets.

peacepipe
05-04-2012, 09:01 AM
How could this be true? If the CBA really says (and means) that, then a player could tell the newspaper that he used steroids throughout the 2010 season and the NFL could take no action against him. Why would the commissioner agree to that, and why would the union even want it?

Edit--just saw Kaylore's post clarifying the limitation is only for discipline for on the field conduct. That makes a lot more sense. And it shows that the union's challenge is an absolute joke. Did Vilma plan, collect money for and pay bounties on the field? Because that's what he was (rightfully) suspended for.

Further edit: I just read the ESPN story on this and the union apparently argues that only the arbitrator has authority to punish this behavior. I hope the arbitrator agrees, and doubles all the suspensions. It would serve this joke of a union right.an arbitrator is rarely ever going to agree completely with one side. its why goodell doesn't want it to go to arbitration.

Garcia Bronco
05-04-2012, 09:02 AM
hence the grievance,goodell has to follow the rules set by the CBA. goodell is not exempt from it. these action took place on the field. off the field is more about getting a dui/getting arrested.

It took place off the field as well. They met, exchanged money, and lied to the league office during the investigation about the whole thing. Further, I would imagine they violated their contracts.

peacepipe
05-04-2012, 09:04 AM
Which actions took place on the field. Did anyone ever see Vilma pay someone a bounty on the field? Where did he keep the money? I don't think those uniforms have pockets.the acts took place on the field. otherwise it's all just talk.

BroncoBeavis
05-04-2012, 09:05 AM
Which actions took place on the field. Did anyone ever see Vilma pay someone a bounty on the field? Where did he keep the money? I don't think those uniforms have pockets.

I'm surprised they didn't try that in the XFL. Have big daddy Mcmahon out there with a roll of 1K bills dolin em out pimp style.

BroncoBeavis
05-04-2012, 09:06 AM
the acts took place on the field. otherwise it's all just talk.

Or conspiracy.

That One Guy
05-04-2012, 09:08 AM
except all the players who were targeted and asked about it said what "that's football." from Favre, to Warner to the others.

Those players you cited aren't a member of the union anymore. Many who are a member of the union who responded to it had harsh criticisms of the notion that it happens everywhere.

I could see a split in the union over this issue but I think they'd be smart enough to not make that public.

That One Guy
05-04-2012, 09:10 AM
the acts took place on the field. otherwise it's all just talk.

The very first argument against this was something that amounted to 'the players didn't take any extra shots or do anything they wouldn't have done anyways so they shouldn't get punished for it'. I saw the idea once or twice and then it seems to have disappeared. I think for some reason, the idea that this had to be substantiated by anything more than proof of the conspiracy to injure didn't hold water with either side.

manchambo
05-04-2012, 09:14 AM
the acts took place on the field. otherwise it's all just talk.

I'm not aware of a single on-the-field action that has been directly connected to this--and that would be very difficult to do. The behavior that's being punished is establishing and paying bounties. It's not "all just talk" but a lot of it is talk, plus paying money related to that talk.

Kaylore
05-04-2012, 09:28 AM
the acts took place on the field. otherwise it's all just talk.

Not really. Multiple parties have admitted to this. They have it documented and they have recordings of the meetings. The NFL was clever enough to make the suspensions about the bounties off the field and the payment system so the NFLPA isn't going to win this.

Lestat
05-04-2012, 09:29 AM
While I agree with them....those players don't get to make this decision. I thought the punishment was too severe for the coaches involved and Vilma, but the Commish has to make a decision that best suits the NFL. Not a few players and coaches.

but the commish has to follow the rules the same as he demands the players do.
but more importantly, if this goes to legal action outside of the NFL you have to have victims who are willing to cooperate to have a crime. Favre didn't want to be involved, Warner says forgive and let live. those were the two guys most affected by the case in question.

Those players you cited aren't a member of the union anymore. Many who are a member of the union who responded to it had harsh criticisms of the notion that it happens everywhere.

I could see a split in the union over this issue but I think they'd be smart enough to not make that public.

but those are the guys who got hurt the most of out the bounty gate. they both essentially were knocked out of games and they are the parties who were most wronged in the scenario as well as being the main evidence used to assess the penalties.

the players know that the union has to protect the players suspended in this scenario because it takes money out of their pockets and food off their table.
almost every player is gonna side with the union over Goddell on this because he is judge,jury and executioner and they don't like that. plus almost every player has said it happens in football all the time and the Saints weren't the only team doing it.

hell Tim Hasselbeck slipped up on SC the other day when debating with Merrill Hoge and said he knew some funky stuff was going on with Williams when he was in Washington. the only people who seem to have known about it and did anything were Fujita and Shockey.

Doggcow
05-04-2012, 09:33 AM
Is Tracy porter on the list?

Lestat
05-04-2012, 09:38 AM
Is Tracy porter on the list?
only defensive team captains and players who were known to participate in the pool.

broncocalijohn
05-04-2012, 09:45 AM
It's true - for actions on the field. The NFLPA is going to try to argue that they are being disciplined for trying to injure people on the field. The NFL is just going flip it back and say its for the collusion to injure players, which all evidence shows the meetings, bounties, payments, etc. all occurred off the field.

And the irony isn't lost on me.

Not to mention lying during the investigation.

Pony Boy
05-04-2012, 10:05 AM
yes, a union that is making sure goodell isn't going to far in its ruling. The NFLPA leadership is doing the job its paid to do.

Tell me why the NFLPA isnít working as hard to give protections to the players that were targets on the hit list? Why have they decided to go all in for the thugs running the bounty program and not support the ones that could have suffered career ending injuries?

peacepipe
05-04-2012, 11:11 AM
Tell me why the NFLPA isnít working as hard to give protections to the players that were targets on the hit list? Why have they decided to go all in for the thugs running the bounty program and not support the ones that could have suffered career ending injuries?those so called "thugs" are union members as well. I've yet to hear anyone,especially those who were targeted, come out against the NFLPA.

Garcia Bronco
05-04-2012, 11:17 AM
those so called "thugs" are union members as well. I've yet to hear anyone,especially those who were targeted, come out against the NFLPA.

I don't see any gay players annoucing their lifestyle either. I guess there aren't any.

extralife
05-04-2012, 11:32 AM
The PA should at least be heavily involved in the process, and if Goodell broke the rules then he broke the rules. To turn this into ZOMGLAWL UNIONS!@!!!11 is ****ing idiotic. Once it is in the hands of the PA, then the arguing as to punishment can begin. The suspensions should stay the same, because the PA should be more interested in physically protecting its members than financially protecting 4 of them.

Garcia Bronco
05-04-2012, 11:38 AM
The PA should at least be heavily involved in the process, and if Goodell broke the rules then he broke the rules. To turn this into ZOMGLAWL UNIONS!@!!!11 is ****ing idiotic. Once it is in the hands of the PA, then the arguing as to punishment can begin. The suspensions should stay the same, because the PA should be more interested in physically protecting its members than financially protecting 4 of them.

Punishment has already be decided and I don't see where the NFLPA has a leg to stand on making their whole protest a waste of time.

peacepipe
05-04-2012, 11:44 AM
Punishment has already be decided and I don't see where the NFLPA has a leg to stand on making their whole protest a waste of time.

the NFLPA has a leg to stand on,the punishment will I believe be decided by an arbitrator. whom IMO will not side with goodell.

That One Guy
05-04-2012, 11:46 AM
The PA should at least be heavily involved in the process, and if Goodell broke the rules then he broke the rules. To turn this into ZOMGLAWL UNIONS!@!!!11 is ****ing idiotic. Once it is in the hands of the PA, then the arguing as to punishment can begin. The suspensions should stay the same, because the PA should be more interested in physically protecting its members than financially protecting 4 of them.

The problem with putting it into the hands of the union is the players are a lot more willing to sacrifice their own well being to make some money. Once they've done that, they then want to sue the NFL for the problems they're having.

Garcia Bronco
05-04-2012, 11:52 AM
the NFLPA has a leg to stand on,the punishment will I believe be decided by an arbitrator. whom IMO will not side with goodell.

They don't. Its already been said here. The stipulation noted by the nflpa is for on-field incidents. This is clearly off the field.

That One Guy
05-04-2012, 11:56 AM
those so called "thugs" are union members as well. I've yet to hear anyone,especially those who were targeted, come out against the NFLPA.

There's been plenty of demands for suspension and, subsequently, support for the suspensions by players and former players. By supporting the suspensions that the NFLPA is fighting, they're pretty much speaking out against the NFLPA.

After the bargaining issues when a few spoke out against the union, nobody is going to be quick to specifically say the union is wrong in those very words but for all intents and purposes, that's exactly what supporting Goodell amounts to.

peacepipe
05-04-2012, 12:22 PM
There's been plenty of demands for suspension and, subsequently, support for the suspensions by players and former players. By supporting the suspensions that the NFLPA is fighting, they're pretty much speaking out against the NFLPA.

After the bargaining issues when a few spoke out against the union, nobody is going to be quick to specifically say the union is wrong in those very words but for all intents and purposes, that's exactly what supporting Goodell amounts to.I'm not saying that there wasn't any support for fines & suspensions. just not a full yrs suspension. the biggest suspension should've ben 4-6 games.

peacepipe
05-04-2012, 12:24 PM
They don't. Its already been said here. The stipulation noted by the nflpa is for on-field incidents. This is clearly off the field.

it isn't clear it was off field.

manchambo
05-04-2012, 12:29 PM
it isn't clear it was off field.

So you're saying one of the bounties was paid on the field? How do you respond to my earlier comment pointing out how the lack of pockets in their uniforms makes this nearly impossible?

That One Guy
05-04-2012, 12:29 PM
I'm not saying that there wasn't any support for fines & suspensions. just not a full yrs suspension. the biggest suspension should've ben 4-6 games.

Based on what premise was 4-6 the right answer? Based on the last bounty scandal? If Sean Peyton got a year, those putting up the money and administering the hits deserved the same.

That One Guy
05-04-2012, 12:31 PM
it isn't clear it was off field.

On the field issues would've already been addressed at the time. On the field hits that are illegal would've been noted. This isn't about the hits. It's about the intent which was established off the field.

hambone13
05-04-2012, 12:33 PM
Yeah. The NFL will just point out the meetings and payments all happened off the field and that these suspensions are for actions off the field, not on.

This is an incredibly lucid and logical point. What the hell are you doing!

hambone13
05-04-2012, 12:37 PM
One of the biggest things wrong with many modern unions, and you talk to those big union guys and they just don't understand that they're cutting their own throats with this stuff.

They tend to knee-jerk themselves into defending the indefensible.

There is some validity to defending repercussions that are similarly "becoming" law or mandate when similar things have been going on since the league's inception. It makes sense to me to punish in the future for clear guidelines in the future. It just sucks that it's coming out as such a scandal.

Garcia Bronco
05-04-2012, 12:39 PM
So you're saying one of the bounties was paid on the field? How do you respond to my earlier comment pointing out how the lack of pockets in their uniforms makes this nearly impossible?

"It's in his jock. Search his jock!"

-Wildcats

gyldenlove
05-04-2012, 01:06 PM
Yeah. The NFL will just point out the meetings and payments all happened off the field and that these suspensions are for actions off the field, not on.

In that case the punishment can purely be for salary cap violation and not corrupting the validity of the game or intent to injure - and there are clear guidelines for how salary cap violations are to be treated and how appeals and hearings are to be handled.

Garcia Bronco
05-04-2012, 01:21 PM
In that case the punishment can purely be for salary cap violation and not corrupting the validity of the game or intent to injure - and there are clear guidelines for how salary cap violations are to be treated and how appeals and hearings are to be handled.

I don't think that applies since this is a behavioral issue

UberBroncoMan
05-04-2012, 01:28 PM
So the NFLPA who also represents the players who were targetted by Williams and his players are now defending these bums. What a ****ing joke of an organisation.

Yeeeeep

Kaylore
05-04-2012, 01:32 PM
I don't think that applies since this is a behavioral issue

Exactly. Conspiracy to injure another employee for pay. I don't think anyone except the late Al Davis would say "a clear salary cap violation." :~ohyah!: If the money was coming from other players, it technically wasn't anyway, if you want to get more specific than you need to be.

How anyone can't see this is a hail mary from the NFLPA at best, and one that makes them look particularly duplicitous, is beyond me.

Garcia Bronco
05-04-2012, 01:38 PM
Exactly. Conspiracy to injure another employee for pay. I don't think anyone except the late Al Davis would say "a clear salary cap violation." :~ohyah!: If the money was coming from other players, it technically wasn't anyway, if you want to get more specific than you need to be.

How anyone can't see this is a hail mary from the NFLPA at best, and one that makes them look particularly duplicitous, is beyond me.

Exactly.

Garcia Bronco
05-04-2012, 01:39 PM
"It's in his jock. Search his jock!"

-Wildcats

No one remembers this movie?

gyldenlove
05-04-2012, 01:49 PM
I don't think that applies since this is a behavioral issue

It is extremely important due to the language of the CBA wether the behaviour took place on or off the field.

The NFLPA will argue that since the actions resulting in payments took place on the field, the violation happened on the field and thus should be heard by an independent arbitrator - the NFL could argue that they only punished for salary cap violations, specifically coaches systematically paying players money not stipulated in their contracts which would certainly not fall under article 14 of the CBA, but would be treated under Article 45 and appeals would be at the discretion of the commissioner.

manchambo
05-04-2012, 02:25 PM
Exactly. Conspiracy to injure another employee for pay. I don't think anyone except the late Al Davis would say "a clear salary cap violation." :~ohyah!: If the money was coming from other players, it technically wasn't anyway, if you want to get more specific than you need to be.

How anyone can't see this is a hail mary from the NFLPA at best, and one that makes them look particularly duplicitous, is beyond me.

The individuals involved are, frankly, lucky they're not being investigated for criminal charges. By voluntarily participating in football the players consent in a certain sense to battery (same as, e.g., boxers) but that consent does not extend to behaviors that are plainly outside the context and rules of the game. For example, I think there could arguably have been criminal charges or civil liability for Hayensworth stomping on that guy's head--it was after the play and had nothing to do with football.

Here we have an obvious criminal conspiracy to injure people for money. It's not altogether different from a bookie paying someone to break a bettor's leg. And all of the key elements of the conspiracy took place far from the field. It's hard for me to see how the players' consent to being battered (in the sense of being, e.g., tackled during a game) would protect these individuals from prosecution for a criminal conspiracy that took place in the Saints' meeting rooms.

peacepipe
05-04-2012, 02:58 PM
So you're saying one of the bounties was paid on the field? How do you respond to my earlier comment pointing out how the lack of pockets in their uniforms makes this nearly impossible?I'm saying the acts were commited on-field.

That One Guy
05-04-2012, 03:03 PM
I'm saying the acts were commited on-field.

The hits were on the field. This isn't about the hits. Lots of players make illegal hits worse than any of these guys did. This is about what happened in the locker rooms.

Are you this dense or just trying to argue?

manchambo
05-04-2012, 03:10 PM
I'm saying the acts were commited on-field.

So you have no idea what the relevant acts are. That's fine.