|Return to Board Menu Bottom||Page 2 of 2|
|re: Appeals Panel Reaffirms Roger Goodell's Authority to Levy Sanctions|
I smell some attention whores....
Reply Back to Top
If you care enough about the details it takes more words than a short post can handle, so here ya go-
The full, written opinion was issued today, and PFT has obtained a copy. While the summary ruling created the impression that the Commissioner would be able to merely re-write the suspension letters, the full-blown opinion seems to create a stiffer challenge for the league.
The appeals panel has concluded that the portion of the Saints’ pay-for-performance/bounty program “that provided for undisclosed payments to players, whether for legitimate or illegitimate plays, falls within the explicit terms of Article 14 [of the CBA] and lies within the [System Arbitrator's] exclusive jurisdiction.” In English (or something close to it), this means that, if Goodell imposes any discipline for funding the pool or receiving money from the pool, he will be acting beyond his jurisdiction to impose discipline for conduct detrimental to the game.
The line ultimately is drawn by the appeals panel “between agreeing to injure other players and the agreement to participate in an undisclosed compensation arrangement.” As a practical matter, that will be a difficult line for the Commissioner to not cross.
When removing the money from the equation, the players agreed to do what they already had an incentive to do — play the game aggressively and effectively, to the point of creating turnovers, sacks, big plays, and preventing opponents from continuing via clean, legal hits.
Is it conduct detrimental to the game to want to hit an opponent so hard (cleanly and legally) that it knocks him out of the game? Is it conduct detrimental to the game to verbalize that desire? In this case, the natural incentive to hit the opponent hard enough (cleanly and legally) to prevent him from continuing became conduct detrimental once a price tag was attached to the successful achievement of that goal.
How can the NFL separate the payment from the intent and still show conduct detrimental to the game, when the underlying conduct is part of a common incentive when playing football, whether it’s the late Al Davis imploring violence against the quarterback or Rex Ryan breaking out the “hot sauce” for something other than chicken wings?
When re-drafting the letters, it won’t be an easy exercise in verbal and mental gymnastics for the league’s lawyers, especially since the punishment initially flowed from the league’s bounty rules, which by their very nature are premised on money changing hands.
That’s especially the case as to Browns linebacker Scott Fujita and Saints defensive end Will Smith, who were suspended for funding the pool of money. While Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma could be punished for allegedly urging injury to opposing quarterbacks and free-agent defensive end Anthony Hargrove could be punished for allegedly lying to the league when the situation was first investigated in 2010, the entire situation takes on a different feel when stripping the money out of the equation, which the Commissioner must do in order to avoid having the suspensions vacated, again.
At some point, the NFL’s best course of action may be to punt.
related: thought someone would post THIS STORY today.
Gray told Jim Wyatt of the Tennesseean he wanted his guys to play without regards to possible fines.
“If you are worrying about that, you are not going to go out and try and blow the guy up,” Gray said. “Great football players have to put that out of their mind. You have to say, ‘This is my territory between the numbers, and if you throw the football you better bring the Gator truck.’
-that's clear "cart off" language
later: ESPN’s Ed Werder reports the league is reviewing the comments, and Gray himself apologized and said he wasn’t encouraging players to hurt opponents.
Reply Back to Top
Reply Back to Top
Reply Back to Top Refresh
|Return to Board|
Page 2 of 2