PDA

View Full Version : Saints Win Their Appeal Per Schefter


Smiling Assassin27
09-07-2012, 12:32 PM
Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter
Saints players won on appeal...

Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet
Delete
FavoritedFavorite

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter
With Saints winning appeal, suspensions are voided as Roger Goodell doesn't have jurisdiction and Stephen Burbank does.




Holy Crapski.

Garcia Bronco
09-07-2012, 12:34 PM
Interesting....Ginger Hammer Down!

rideco
09-07-2012, 12:37 PM
wow

Lestat
09-07-2012, 12:37 PM
HELLS YEAH!

menonite
09-07-2012, 12:41 PM
Cheaters always prosper. Unless you're Tiger Woods.

SoCalBronco
09-07-2012, 12:43 PM
Good to see Goodell smacked down.

Garcia Bronco
09-07-2012, 12:44 PM
I don't ultimately understad the ruling or how dip**** schefter has reported it. So the arbitrator can suspend players but the Commish cannot? That doesn't make sense. Not at all.

Lestat
09-07-2012, 12:44 PM
Cheaters always prosper. Unless you're Tiger Woods.

:spit: take a look at his sponsorship deals and his wallet. he's prospering just fine

RhymesayersDU
09-07-2012, 12:45 PM
Garcia calling Schefter a dip**** is the best pot/kettle scenario we've had on this board in months.

Lestat
09-07-2012, 12:47 PM
I don't ultimately understad the ruling or how dip**** schefter has reported it. So the arbitrator can suspend players but the Commish cannot? That doesn't make sense. Not at all.

either has to be conflict of interest due to him being on the NFL side that finds the evidence,administers the judgement and hears the appeal.

or it was found that he didn't have enough evidence to suspend them for the duration that he did.
suspensions should go to a arbitrator anyways. though the dumbass NFLPA should have bargained for that in the CBA. though i wonder if Smith didn't gamble that they could eventually use the legal system if anything crazy broke out due to his legal background.

Garcia Bronco
09-07-2012, 12:51 PM
either has to be conflict of interest due to him being on the NFL side that finds the evidence,administers the judgement and hears the appeal.

or it was found that he didn't have enough evidence to suspend them for the duration that he did.
suspensions should go to a arbitrator anyways. though the dumbass NFLPA should have bargained for that in the CBA. though i wonder if Smith didn't gamble that they could eventually use the legal system if anything crazy broke out due to his legal background.

I have to agree on the latter.

El Minion
09-07-2012, 12:54 PM
I don't ultimately understad the ruling or how dip**** schefter has reported it. So the arbitrator can suspend players but the Commish cannot? That doesn't make sense. Not at all.

Article 14 of the CBA and how it could affect all of the bounty penalties (http://whodatwarriors.com/2012/08/15/article-14-of-the-cba-and-how-it-could-effect-all-of-the-bounty-penalties/)
Posted by whodattn ⋅ Aug 15, 2012 ⋅ 9 Comments

When it comes to the events of Judge Helen G. Berrigan’s courtroom, everyone has been focused on whether or not Jonathan Vilma will get an injunction putting his suspension on hold. While it would be great to see Vilma back with the team and rehabilitating his knee properly, it has gone largely unnoticed how much of an effect Berrigan’s ruling can have.

Much of the talk with regard to who has the power to decide the fate of the players involved centers around Article 14 of the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. If Berrigan rules that the players took part in a pay-for-performance system rather than pay-to-injure, the discipline would be the responsibility of the system arbitrator, not Commissioner Roger Goodell. As a result, all player suspensions would be immediately wiped out. That’s not the only effect Berrigan’s ruling would have.

Classifying the system in New Orleans as pay-for-performance would mean that the discipline falls under Article 14 of the CBA. The first big change would be that the players can not be suspended at all. Article 14, Section 6, Subsection A deals with the sanctions allowed for violations of the salary cap by players and agents. The most the league could hit the players with is a $500,000 fine and forcing players to surrender whatever money they received as a direct result of the program. So in short the moment Berrigan hands this over to the system arbitrator, the players are back on the field for good. The differences in the players’ sanctions is just the beginning though.

In addition to the changes to the players’ sanctions, Article 14 could be good news for the coaches as well. Well, two of the coaches anyway. As it stands right now, Sean Payton has been suspended for one year with the opportunity to apply for reinstatement at that point and Gregg Williams has been suspended indefinitely with the opportunity to apply for reinstatement after one year. According to Article 14, Section 6, Subsection B (sanctions against clubs and their employees for violations of the salary cap) only allows for a maximum suspension of up to one year and a maximum fine of $500,000. In the case of Sean Payton, this would do away with having to apply for readmission into the league. Technically, the Commissioner couldn’t keep him out according to the CBA. As for Gregg Williams, it would put a definite clock on his time away from the league.

One last thing of interest I came across. Article 14, Section 3 covers System Arbitrator Proceedings. It’s all pretty basic stuff, but it’s the last line of the section that is of particular interest. It reads “Other than as set forth in Article 7, the complaining party shall bear the burden of demonstrating by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the challenged conduct was in violation of such Article.” In other words if Goodell wants punishments handed down, he actually has to prove his case to someone other than himself. Don’t get too excited though because the league’s case will still never see the light of day. According to Article 15, Section 10 which covers confidentiality with regard to the System Arbitrator, nothing other than the decisions will be released to anyone other than the parties involved.

Berrigan’s ruling could have a much broader effect than is being discussed. While this may have started with one man fighting for his reputation, it could result in a measure of redemption for six.

Beantown Bronco
09-07-2012, 12:56 PM
either has to be conflict of interest due to him being on the NFL side that finds the evidence,administers the judgement and hears the appeal.

Rumor has it Goodell is changing his last name to Dredd.

Jetmeck
09-07-2012, 12:56 PM
Good to see Goodell smacked down.

this, he thinks he is god.
Everyone including football players should get due process.

Pony Boy
09-07-2012, 12:58 PM
Oh great...... now there will be a big bounty on Manning.

Lestat
09-07-2012, 12:58 PM
Article 14 of the CBA and how it could affect all of the bounty penalties (http://whodatwarriors.com/2012/08/15/article-14-of-the-cba-and-how-it-could-effect-all-of-the-bounty-penalties/)
Posted by whodattn ⋅ Aug 15, 2012 ⋅ 9 Comments

When it comes to the events of Judge Helen G. Berrigan’s courtroom, everyone has been focused on whether or not Jonathan Vilma will get an injunction putting his suspension on hold. While it would be great to see Vilma back with the team and rehabilitating his knee properly, it has gone largely unnoticed how much of an effect Berrigan’s ruling can have.

Much of the talk with regard to who has the power to decide the fate of the players involved centers around Article 14 of the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. If Berrigan rules that the players took part in a pay-for-performance system rather than pay-to-injure, the discipline would be the responsibility of the system arbitrator, not Commissioner Roger Goodell. As a result, all player suspensions would be immediately wiped out. That’s not the only effect Berrigan’s ruling would have.

Classifying the system in New Orleans as pay-for-performance would mean that the discipline falls under Article 14 of the CBA. The first big change would be that the players can not be suspended at all. Article 14, Section 6, Subsection A deals with the sanctions allowed for violations of the salary cap by players and agents. The most the league could hit the players with is a $500,000 fine and forcing players to surrender whatever money they received as a direct result of the program. So in short the moment Berrigan hands this over to the system arbitrator, the players are back on the field for good. The differences in the players’ sanctions is just the beginning though.

In addition to the changes to the players’ sanctions, Article 14 could be good news for the coaches as well. Well, two of the coaches anyway. As it stands right now, Sean Payton has been suspended for one year with the opportunity to apply for reinstatement at that point and Gregg Williams has been suspended indefinitely with the opportunity to apply for reinstatement after one year. According to Article 14, Section 6, Subsection B (sanctions against clubs and their employees for violations of the salary cap) only allows for a maximum suspension of up to one year and a maximum fine of $500,000. In the case of Sean Payton, this would do away with having to apply for readmission into the league. Technically, the Commissioner couldn’t keep him out according to the CBA. As for Gregg Williams, it would put a definite clock on his time away from the league.

One last thing of interest I came across. Article 14, Section 3 covers System Arbitrator Proceedings. It’s all pretty basic stuff, but it’s the last line of the section that is of particular interest. It reads “Other than as set forth in Article 7, the complaining party shall bear the burden of demonstrating by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the challenged conduct was in violation of such Article.” In other words if Goodell wants punishments handed down, he actually has to prove his case to someone other than himself. Don’t get too excited though because the league’s case will still never see the light of day. According to Article 15, Section 10 which covers confidentiality with regard to the System Arbitrator, nothing other than the decisions will be released to anyone other than the parties involved.

Berrigan’s ruling could have a much broader effect than is being discussed. While this may have started with one man fighting for his reputation, it could result in a measure of redemption for six.

ok, Smith is a sneaky little bastard. just the type needed to handle Goodell.

bronco militia
09-07-2012, 01:17 PM
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9BRGZYWd240?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9BRGZYWd240?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

gyldenlove
09-07-2012, 01:21 PM
Article 14 of the CBA and how it could affect all of the bounty penalties (http://whodatwarriors.com/2012/08/15/article-14-of-the-cba-and-how-it-could-effect-all-of-the-bounty-penalties/)
Posted by whodattn ⋅ Aug 15, 2012 ⋅ 9 Comments

When it comes to the events of Judge Helen G. Berrigan’s courtroom, everyone has been focused on whether or not Jonathan Vilma will get an injunction putting his suspension on hold. While it would be great to see Vilma back with the team and rehabilitating his knee properly, it has gone largely unnoticed how much of an effect Berrigan’s ruling can have.

Much of the talk with regard to who has the power to decide the fate of the players involved centers around Article 14 of the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. If Berrigan rules that the players took part in a pay-for-performance system rather than pay-to-injure, the discipline would be the responsibility of the system arbitrator, not Commissioner Roger Goodell. As a result, all player suspensions would be immediately wiped out. That’s not the only effect Berrigan’s ruling would have.

Classifying the system in New Orleans as pay-for-performance would mean that the discipline falls under Article 14 of the CBA. The first big change would be that the players can not be suspended at all. Article 14, Section 6, Subsection A deals with the sanctions allowed for violations of the salary cap by players and agents. The most the league could hit the players with is a $500,000 fine and forcing players to surrender whatever money they received as a direct result of the program. So in short the moment Berrigan hands this over to the system arbitrator, the players are back on the field for good. The differences in the players’ sanctions is just the beginning though.

In addition to the changes to the players’ sanctions, Article 14 could be good news for the coaches as well. Well, two of the coaches anyway. As it stands right now, Sean Payton has been suspended for one year with the opportunity to apply for reinstatement at that point and Gregg Williams has been suspended indefinitely with the opportunity to apply for reinstatement after one year. According to Article 14, Section 6, Subsection B (sanctions against clubs and their employees for violations of the salary cap) only allows for a maximum suspension of up to one year and a maximum fine of $500,000. In the case of Sean Payton, this would do away with having to apply for readmission into the league. Technically, the Commissioner couldn’t keep him out according to the CBA. As for Gregg Williams, it would put a definite clock on his time away from the league.

One last thing of interest I came across. Article 14, Section 3 covers System Arbitrator Proceedings. It’s all pretty basic stuff, but it’s the last line of the section that is of particular interest. It reads “Other than as set forth in Article 7, the complaining party shall bear the burden of demonstrating by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the challenged conduct was in violation of such Article.” In other words if Goodell wants punishments handed down, he actually has to prove his case to someone other than himself. Don’t get too excited though because the league’s case will still never see the light of day. According to Article 15, Section 10 which covers confidentiality with regard to the System Arbitrator, nothing other than the decisions will be released to anyone other than the parties involved.

Berrigan’s ruling could have a much broader effect than is being discussed. While this may have started with one man fighting for his reputation, it could result in a measure of redemption for six.

The suspension was overturned because it wasn't clear that it was handed down for conduct detrimental to the game.

Goodell and the NFL have to make a clearer ruling outlining exactly what acts are being punished and why these acts are being punished the way they are. I imagine Goodell will find the suspension is handed out in part because of lack of cooperation with the leagues investigations and in part because partaking in such a system is detrimental to the reputation of the league and could lead to liability for injuries incurred.

I suspect a new set of suspensions is going to be handed down pretty quickly (I would guess before Vilma is back from his injury).

bombay
09-07-2012, 02:27 PM
Good to see Goodell smacked down.


Agree

Lestat
09-07-2012, 02:53 PM
The suspension was overturned because it wasn't clear that it was handed down for conduct detrimental to the game.

Goodell and the NFL have to make a clearer ruling outlining exactly what acts are being punished and why these acts are being punished the way they are. I imagine Goodell will find the suspension is handed out in part because of lack of cooperation with the leagues investigations and in part because partaking in such a system is detrimental to the reputation of the league and could lead to liability for injuries incurred.

I suspect a new set of suspensions is going to be handed down pretty quickly (I would guess before Vilma is back from his injury).

yes but the issue is was it a salary cap violation or a player safety one? pay for performance is a salary cap violation and what is found in all the evidence shown, hence why so many people who look it over say it's extreme punishment.

pay for injury would allow him to dole out the suspensions he originally did and uphold them. problem is the evidence most have seen doesn't fully support that and it shows in the verdict, the NFLPA supporting the Saints players and the former and current players who have less issues with the Saints than originally thought by the public at large.

bombay
09-07-2012, 02:54 PM
Posted by Mike Florio on September 7, 2012, 3:40 PM EDT

In the end, Judge Berrigan didn’t have to issue a ruling at all.

An internal appeals panel has overturned the bounty suspensions imposed on the players, a source with knowledge of the decision tells PFT. The development was first reported by Jim Trotter of SI.com.

“Victory is mine!!!!” Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma said, via Twitter.

Indeed it is. Unlike any ruling that may have been issued by Judge Berrigan, the ruling from the internal appeals panel, which overturned a prior decision from arbitrator Richard Burbank, is final and binding. The league has no recourse — unless the league chooses to file a lawsuit attacking the outcome of the internal arbitration. (Which is what the players had been trying to do before Judge Berrigan.)

As to Judge Berrigan, she may still issue a ruling adopting and enforcing the outcome of the internal appeal, giving federal credibility to the decision of the panel.

What it means, in a nutshell, is that any discipline will be imposed under Article 14 of the CBA.

Kaylore
09-07-2012, 02:55 PM
Good to see Goodell smacked down.

Really? You're just mad because he suspended DJ - and legitimately I might add.

I do agree, in principle, that the idea of players having to appeal the commissioner's decision to the commissioner is beyond asinine, though. If this leads to a truly fair appeals process, then I am "happy he got smacked" down.

ludo21
09-07-2012, 02:58 PM
so is DJ still suspended?

maven
09-07-2012, 03:03 PM
Good! Now the coaches should file an appeal.

Tombstone RJ
09-07-2012, 03:12 PM
meh, I'm not sure how the judge came to the conclusion that this was a pay for performance thing and not a pay to injure thing. The contracts already have performance based incentives so why do they need more performance based incentives? Doesn't that somehow lessen the effectiveness of the contracts already in place? That is, if a player already has performanced based incentives, how can the players involved not be violating the spirit of their current contracts with the team by putting equal to more value on these side bets?

These players were trying to knock other players out of games, how is that not a pay for injury incentive?

Lestat
09-07-2012, 03:23 PM
Posted by Mike Florio on September 7, 2012, 3:40 PM EDT

In the end, Judge Berrigan didn’t have to issue a ruling at all.

An internal appeals panel has overturned the bounty suspensions imposed on the players, a source with knowledge of the decision tells PFT. The development was first reported by Jim Trotter of SI.com.

“Victory is mine!!!!” Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma said, via Twitter.

Indeed it is. Unlike any ruling that may have been issued by Judge Berrigan, the ruling from the internal appeals panel, which overturned a prior decision from arbitrator Richard Burbank, is final and binding. The league has no recourse — unless the league chooses to file a lawsuit attacking the outcome of the internal arbitration. (Which is what the players had been trying to do before Judge Berrigan.)

As to Judge Berrigan, she may still issue a ruling adopting and enforcing the outcome of the internal appeal, giving federal credibility to the decision of the panel.

What it means, in a nutshell, is that any discipline will be imposed under Article 14 of the CBA.

whoah :wiggle:

Lestat
09-07-2012, 03:27 PM
meh, I'm not sure how the judge came to the conclusion that this was a pay for performance thing and not a pay to injure thing. The contracts already have performance based incentives so why do they need more performance based incentives? Doesn't that somehow lessen the effectiveness of the contracts already in place? That is, if a player already has performanced based incentives, how can the players involved not be violating the spirit of their current contracts with the team by putting equal to more value on these side bets?

These players were trying to knock other players out of games, how is that not a pay for injury incentive?

the only real evidence the league has is a ledger denoting bonuses that were paid out, some audio evidence that outside of Gregg Williams has been denounced as not being the players involved in the bounty scandal and the refusal of the organization as a whole to cooperate in the NFL investigation.

all of that stuff screams pay for performance, Goodell got pissed that they wouldn't admit guilt or cooperate and then let his opinion and desire to protect the shield override the actual evidence involved.

Tombstone RJ
09-07-2012, 03:35 PM
the only real evidence the league has is a ledger denoting bonuses that were paid out, some audio evidence that outside of Gregg Williams has been denounced as not being the players involved in the bounty scandal and the refusal of the organization as a whole to cooperate in the NFL investigation.

all of that stuff screams pay for performance, Goodell got pissed that they wouldn't admit guilt or cooperate and then let his opinion and desire to protect the shield override the actual evidence involved.

so basically collusion by the entire Saint's organization to hide the truth, that's fine. If and when the friggen NLFPA starts b****ing and moaning about how the NFL is not doing enough to protect the players, I'd throw this crap in their face and tell them to eat it.

Lestat
09-07-2012, 03:42 PM
so basically collusion by the entire Saint's organization to hide the truth, that's fine. If and when the friggen NLFPA starts b****ing and moaning about how the NFL is not doing enough to protect the players, I'd throw this crap in their face and tell the to eat it.

they'll just throw the replacement refs back in the NFL's face and win all day going away.

the NFLPA is doing their job. standing up for the players, almost every player on record has said the punishment was crap and they stand by the players. most didn't endorse what the saints did, but said that the evidence wasn't there to condemn them and also said it's been the culture of football forever and won't change.

this is a simple matter, everyone and their mama knows that it was pay for injury. but the evidence doesn't prove jack **** for pay for injury, it proves pay for performance and that's a salary cap violation, not a player safety one.

that means the league has to find hard evidence and not hearsay or conjecture to prove beyond a doubt that it was pay for injury and the evidence just isn't there without the players talking.

broncocalijohn
09-07-2012, 04:12 PM
so is DJ still suspended?

Yes but now he and Vilma are fighting on if they should let Goodell eat at their restuarant.

gyldenlove
09-07-2012, 06:02 PM
yes but the issue is was it a salary cap violation or a player safety one? pay for performance is a salary cap violation and what is found in all the evidence shown, hence why so many people who look it over say it's extreme punishment.

pay for injury would allow him to dole out the suspensions he originally did and uphold them. problem is the evidence most have seen doesn't fully support that and it shows in the verdict, the NFLPA supporting the Saints players and the former and current players who have less issues with the Saints than originally thought by the public at large.

That is why I believe Goodell will have to go back and redo the punishments, I am sure he will come to about the same length, but will put down comprehensive reasons why this is so. I expect him to hit on two points, lack of cooperation with previous investigations in 2010 and the player safety issue of incentivising injuries. I think Vilma can expect to see a reduction in suspension just because he was hit harder than the others and I don't think Goodell can make that argument based purely on lack of cooperation and player safety.

I will be interested to see if they send it back to Burbank to get a penalty handed down.

GoBroncos DownUnder
09-07-2012, 08:12 PM
Can we settle this already.
Vilma and Goddell need to be scheduled to take the oath before congress and swear that there WAS/WASN'T a bounty program ... I'm pretty sure that one of them will back out, and IMO that person will be Vilma. ;)

Tombstone RJ
09-07-2012, 08:20 PM
they'll just throw the replacement refs back in the NFL's face and win all day going away.

the NFLPA is doing their job. standing up for the players, almost every player on record has said the punishment was crap and they stand by the players. most didn't endorse what the saints did, but said that the evidence wasn't there to condemn them and also said it's been the culture of football forever and won't change.

this is a simple matter, everyone and their mama knows that it was pay for injury. but the evidence doesn't prove jack **** for pay for injury, it proves pay for performance and that's a salary cap violation, not a player safety one.

that means the league has to find hard evidence and not hearsay or conjecture to prove beyond a doubt that it was pay for injury and the evidence just isn't there without the players talking.

There is no correlation between the refs and injuries, that is, if you can prove one way or another a ref is responsible for an injury then you might have a point. Injuries happened with the old refs, and they will happen with the new refs, the NFLPA will never be able to make a case that the old refs will somehow prevent injuries or would have somehow stopped an injury.

When there is a "bounty" to put opposing players out of a game that is by default, an injury.

boltaneer
09-07-2012, 08:28 PM
It sounds like Goodell will still get the last laugh:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/07/leagues-internal-memo-suggests-that-suspensions-will-be-re-issued/

League’s internal memo suggests that suspensions will be re-issued

Posted by Mike Florio on September 7, 2012, 9:22 PM EDT

Many are painting the decision to wipe out the bounty suspensions imposed against Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, Saints defensive end Will Smith, Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, and free-agent defensive end Anthony Hargrove as a slam-dunk win for the players.

While it was a victory on the surface, it was fairly hollow and potentially temporary.

Apart from the fact that the timing of the decision prevented the players from practicing in preparation for Week One, the ruling gives the NFL another chance to impose the suspensions in a way that draws clear lines between conduct detrimental to the game (over which Commissioner Roger Goodell has jurisdiction) and salary-cap violations arising from a pay-for-performance/bounty system (over which Goodell has no jurisdiction).

It’s likely that the league will simply re-issue the same suspensions. Indeed, the memo sent by NFL general counsel Jeff Pash to the various teams on Friday clearly indicates that the league continues to believe that wrongdoing occurred — and that there should be significant punishment for it.

“Nothing in today’s decision contradicts any of the facts found in the investigation into this matter, or absolves any player of responsibility for conduct detrimental,” Pash writes. “Nor does the decision in any way suggest what discipline would be appropriate for conduct that lies within the authority of the Commissioner. Per the panel’s direction, the Commissioner will promptly reconsider the matter and make a determination of the appropriate discipline consistent with the standards set forth in today’s decision. All clubs will be advised when that decision is made.”

It would be a surprise if the outcome is anything other than what it already was: a full season for Vilma, four games for Smith, three games for Fujita, and eight games for Hargrove.

Lestat
09-07-2012, 10:05 PM
There is no correlation between the refs and injuries, that is, if you can prove one way or another a ref is responsible for an injury then you might have a point. Injuries happened with the old refs, and they will happen with the new refs, the NFLPA will never be able to make a case that the old refs will somehow prevent injuries or would have somehow stopped an injury.

When there is a "bounty" to put opposing players out of a game that is by default, an injury.

refs are involved in every play, the rule book is huge and there are likely going to be many plays where they miss things that a vet ref would not.
players have already said they expect other players to try to get away with everything they can. this is likely to lead to so more dangerous plays they may or may not get flagged as the players see what they can get away with.

that's much more potentially impactful than one team paying for "cart offs"

GreatBronco16
09-08-2012, 05:54 PM
It sounds like Goodell will still get the last laugh:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/07/leagues-internal-memo-suggests-that-suspensions-will-be-re-issued/

League’s internal memo suggests that suspensions will be re-issued

Posted by Mike Florio on September 7, 2012, 9:22 PM EDT

Many are painting the decision to wipe out the bounty suspensions imposed against Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, Saints defensive end Will Smith, Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, and free-agent defensive end Anthony Hargrove as a slam-dunk win for the players.

While it was a victory on the surface, it was fairly hollow and potentially temporary.

Apart from the fact that the timing of the decision prevented the players from practicing in preparation for Week One, the ruling gives the NFL another chance to impose the suspensions in a way that draws clear lines between conduct detrimental to the game (over which Commissioner Roger Goodell has jurisdiction) and salary-cap violations arising from a pay-for-performance/bounty system (over which Goodell has no jurisdiction).

It’s likely that the league will simply re-issue the same suspensions. Indeed, the memo sent by NFL general counsel Jeff Pash to the various teams on Friday clearly indicates that the league continues to believe that wrongdoing occurred — and that there should be significant punishment for it.

“Nothing in today’s decision contradicts any of the facts found in the investigation into this matter, or absolves any player of responsibility for conduct detrimental,” Pash writes. “Nor does the decision in any way suggest what discipline would be appropriate for conduct that lies within the authority of the Commissioner. Per the panel’s direction, the Commissioner will promptly reconsider the matter and make a determination of the appropriate discipline consistent with the standards set forth in today’s decision. All clubs will be advised when that decision is made.”

It would be a surprise if the outcome is anything other than what it already was: a full season for Vilma, four games for Smith, three games for Fujita, and eight games for Hargrove.


Yep, basically what I was thinking too. The Commish will still suspend them for conduct demtrimental. After that, the players can seek a reduction in the suspension and hope to get a couple games knocked off. Other than that, they are still going to get suspended.

Tombstone RJ
09-08-2012, 06:12 PM
refs are involved in every play, the rule book is huge and there are likely going to be many plays where they miss things that a vet ref would not.
players have already said they expect other players to try to get away with everything they can. this is likely to lead to so more dangerous plays they may or may not get flagged as the players see what they can get away with.

that's much more potentially impactful than one team paying for "cart offs"

like I said, prove it. You can't, the NFLPA can't. It's not even worth considering and it's in no way similar to intentionally hurting other players for money.

/end.