I could be way off or mixing sports but wasn't this something the PA bargained for in the last CBA? the didn't want Goodell holding all the power.
As part of the last round of CBA negotiations they negotiated an 3rd party for the discipline to be held. However appeal and ultimate decisions were left in commissioner hands.
Interesting, appreciate the responses. Seems like a worthless exercise if Goodell can just overrule it with whatever he thinks instead.
NFL players: We don't want Goodell to be the finger of God when it comes to handing out punishments. CBA negotiators: We secured a neutral 3rd party to arbitrate for you now. NFL players: Awesome! So someone else besides Goodell will be administering fines & suspensions? CBA negotiators:
Good, let's get this to discovery and take down a few other scumbags, primarily the owners and hopefully Goodell too.
Love that the NFL got together with itself to have this "independent" third party hand down punishment. Such a clown show
I'm rooting for as many skeletons to get dragged out of the NFL's closet as possible. If Watson gets banned forever but Goodell and some of the biggest scumbag owners get got then it's a win.
We’d like to direct everyone to that one time 15 years ago when a 12-yr old Deshaun courageously allowed Warrick Dunn to build a home for his family.
I read that as the PA is going to show awful shit that other players and owners have done but idk. I mean Ray Lewis was very likely at least an accomplice to murder. Ben Roethlisberger raped women and had his security team help cover it up. Daniel Snyder and Jimmy Haslam are top tier scumbags. Tyreek Hill pushed his pregnant girlfriend down a flight of stairs and beat up his toddler son. Jim Brown raped a woman and had quite a rap sheet. To be clear, I'm not saying Watson isn't a piece of shit or shouldn't be mentioned among those just framing it as the most egregious thing they've ever heard is grandstanding when there's a mile long list of awful shit their players and owners have done.
Overall unions are good but I really hate the aspect that they won't just turn their back on shit heads thay make the rest of the union look bad. They'll go to bad for any member for any offense. Police unions are the absolute worst in that aspect.
you can be as big of a piece of shit as you want just don’t damage the integrity of our precious game (that probably has very little integrity).
This is where people lose me. The NFL is qualified to punish players in order to protect the integrity of its game. It's one of the purposes the league office exists. The NFL is not qualified to be a fill in for our awful criminal system when it fucks up and come up with perfect length suspensions that equates stuff like sexual assault, domestic violence and drunk driving to a number of football games they should miss. People bringing up stuff like Ridley or Gordon to compare to Watson is stupid and disingenuous to me. It's not the same thing, and we all know it's not the same thing.
Because people outside the league (fans and media) demand them to do so, not because it is qualified to do so. No sports league is.
so because our legal system is flawed we should just let the rich and powerful do whatever they want? I agree the league is doing this because of outside pressure not because they care but isn’t that the power the media and fans possess?
Not sure what you’re getting at here. Are you saying fans shouldn’t voice anger/concerns at perceived inequitable suspensions?
I don't really know what you're suggesting here. The league is forced to suspend people like Watson because the public demands it. It's not suspending Watson because it finds his actions so reprehensible and doesn't live up to their standards. They're suspending him because... - They're trying to find some magic number that will stop people from yelling at them for being too lenient (a losing proposition no matter what they do) - By suspending him, they give the Browns the cover to then play him when it's over because "he's served his punishment" and the case is closed. Personally, I'd rather the league just let teams like the Browns fend for themselves without their cover. If they're this comfortable making Watson the face of their franchise with his history, go ahead and take all the shit. I realize I'm in the minority on that.
I’m suggesting that society reacting to something like this and the league reacting is a good thing. I think the league stepping in shifts the calculus less in favor of the player and winning at all costs so it’s better then leaving it up to the teams.
i don't think the NFL suspending a player for criminal actions/behavior is them "filling in for an awful criminal (justice) system." i don't really understand the argument for where it is doing that.
You can voice anger and concern over whatever you want to voice anger and concern over. I don't care. But if you think player suspensions for misconduct (Watson) are in any way comparable to collectively bargained player suspensions for substance issues (Gordon), you're bringing up a false equivalency and I'm not going to take your anger or concerns very seriously because of it.
Are fans wrong for thinking a league/team should suspend players for actions they find reprehensible and don't live up to their standards?
If the NFL didn't want its players jizzing on anything that moves, it should have collectively bargained with the players on that. All this after-the-fact bullshit, I don't care for.
You’re free to take anger or concerns as seriously as you like. I don’t care. But as far as I can tell, the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement doesn’t place guidelines or restrictions on sexual assault allegations, and so it seems perfectly reasonable to discuss and determine the “harm to the game” caused by a player sexually assaulting 24+ women as compared to the harm of a player doing other behaviors resulting in suspension.
Look, I don't have a problem with people wanting Watson to be suspended. I wish he could never play in the league again because I don't want to watch it. This isn't some pro-Watson stance. I just find it weird that some people get so mad at the length of suspensions by these sports leagues that simply aren't equipped to do it. There is no way that you're ever going to satisfy people on a consistent basis by equating crimes like these to sports games. The reason is because it will always feel light and completely inconsequential. One year sounds like a lot, but if he did the stuff he's accused of (seems awful likely he did), that's not enough because we're equating football games to rape. There is no amount of football games to suspend him that possibly can be enough to make that right. Watson had 20+ women accusing him of sexual assault or misconduct. He faced a grand jury and ended up facing zero charges. Then the NFL goes through this process and he's suspended 6 games and some people freak out and want to shit on the league like it doesn't understand this stuff. Of course it doesn't understand. It's a fucking football league, and it seems like it gets held to a higher standard on a lot of this stuff than our actual justice system. I think that's very weird.
The criminal justice system has an incredibly high bar to attempt to (theoretically!) avoid imprisoning innocent people at the expense of allowing some guilty to go free. Sports leagues determine the likelihood that a player engaged in behavior that is injurious to the perception of the league, and determine the level to which a player has the privilege of continuing to participate. I don’t understand why one type of extra legal behavior is legitimate (Gordon getting suspended but not prosecuted) vs. this.