*CONFIRMED post #238, pg 16* Tank Johnson Would Be Available to Us In Week 9

[Hostile]

Sorry if it's my legal training, but I don't really believe too much of anything til I see some sort of legal authority on the subject. Like I said before, I have no idea whether he would have to be under contract to serve the suspension or not. It does appear to be common perception that he does, but that and a quarter will get you...hell, that won't even get you a cup of coffee.

We've only been talking about Q owing 4 games to any team that signs him since 2005.

We talked ad nauseum about Bryant owing 2 games for his speeding in his Lambourghini.

The entire off season was about suspensions doled out by the NFL.

Where have you been? The people on here might as well be an authority on the subject, they're pretty well informed and on top of that I repeat, the blurb from the CBA couldn't be any clearer.

 

[theogt]

sure there is. to make sure the player pays the price *as a player*. the team has to make a choice to keep him or cut him now.

chicago in this instance chose cut. he's no longer a member of the NFL anymore than you and I are. how can you and I serve suspensions for an organization we're not a part of?

if the NFL says you will be suspended for 8 games as a member of our league, then only as a member of that league can you serve that suspension.

how in the name of god did this get so complex?​

It's actually a little more complex than you realize apparently. It all depends on how you define the term "suspension." If you define it literally as having your membership suspended, then it could possibly require him to be under contract to have his membership suspended. However, it would not require him to be under contract if you're only "suspending" his ability to play in the NFL. In which case, you are taking away his ability to play, regardless of whether he is under contract or not.

 

[iceberg]

again it is not common sense as there really is no 'common sense' when it comes to contract. There is nothing that says someone cannot be suspended form the league without a contract.

great.

then i suspend you from this forum for 8 weeks.

i'll bet now is about the time you question my authority to do so. in the end, you're still fighting long after the castration. how cute.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well the sun could go down in the east, but that's not how it happens.

i can relate to you the physical laws in place that cause the rotation of the earth about its axis and aobut the sun and how that and the propagation of light froma fusion reaction causes the sun to rise with consistency.

in this case we are dealing with contracts and not physical law. There is nothing from either the suspension or the CBA that actually states that a suspension requires a contract. there is something in the personal conduct policy that states a contract is required to hand downa suspension but that does not extend farther than that.

Now i am willing to assume for now that usa today has information that we do not but this assertion that it is obvious is laughable when dealing with arbitrary contracts.

 

[superpunk]

Sure. Why not?

I have no idea why it's not possible for him to have an 8 week suspension from the NFL even though he's not under contract.

The only reason would be that it was an arbitrary decision by someone to make that the rule. There is no logical necessity for it.

It does seem the end result is the same.

But since he's not an NFL player currently, is not being in the NFL the same thing as being suspended by the NFL? Technically, am I currently suspended by the NFL. Since this doesn't appear to be detailed in the CBA, I guess the lawyers (professional liars) would have to work it out - and I would have to also say that there is no "right" side in this debate.

It doesn't make sense that Tank could technically be serving his suspension right now. But it is possible.

 

[Hostile]

Sure. Why not?

I have no idea why it's not possible for him to have an 8 week suspension from the NFL even though he's not under contract.

The only reason would be that it was an arbitrary decision by someone to make that the rule. There is no logical necessity for it.

I can be suspended as a Tucson Police Officer without being on the force?

Tell me how. I think I'd like to test your theory.

 

[iceberg]

It's actually a little more complex than you realize apparently. It all depends on how you define the term "suspension." If you define it literally as having your membership suspended, then it could possibly require him to be under contract to have his membership suspended. However, it would not require him to be under contract if you're only "suspending" his ability to play in the NFL. In which case, you are taking away his ability to play, regardless of whether he is under contract or not.

whatever. we've long since bypassed my outter fringes of stupidity.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

great.

then i suspend you from this forum for 8 weeks.

i'll bet now is about the time you question my authority to do so. in theend, you're still fighting long after the castration. how cute.

/yawn. still riding wg's coattails?

 

[Hostile]

Actually the conduct policy only pertains to how punishments are to be dtermined and not for how the punishments are carried out.

its similar to a court handing out punishment and then turning over the convicted to the department of corrections with the guidleines in place.

essentially the conduct policy states when the commisioner can suspend and then it is up to the commisioners discretion how said punishment will be administered.

when i see an official press release stating that it is for the first 8 games i take that at face value because in a very real sense the suspensions handed down by the commisioner are arbitrary.

So, until you see that official press release continue to hold your hands over your eyes and scream "no?"

Okay.

 

[theogt]

We've only been talking about Q owing 4 games to any team that signs him since 2005.

We talked ad nauseum about Bryant owing 2 games for his speeding in his Lambourghini.

The entire off season was about suspensions doled out by the NFL.

Where have you been? The people on here might as well be an authority on the subject, they're pretty well informed and on top of that I repeat

Sure, being the consensus it is persuasive, but it's not authoritative at all. People shouldn't slam fuzzy when they can't actually prove what they're saying.

the blurb from the CBA couldn't be any clearer.

Actually, the blurb clearly has nothing to do with the situation that we're discussing. The blurb states that players under contract are subject to the agreement. He was under contract when the penalty was handed down. So, he is subject to the penalty. That does not necessarily mean that he has to be under contract for the penalty to be enforced.

 

[iceberg]

/yawn. still riding wg's coattails?

you still being intentionally stupid?

hey - didn't i ban you?? GO AWAY NOW!

 

[Big Dakota]

i can relate to you the physical laws in place that cause the rotation of the earth about its axis and aobut the sun and how that and the propagation of light froma fusion reaction causes the sun to rise with consistency.

in this case we are dealing with contracts and not physical law. There is nothing from either the suspension or the CBA that actually states that a suspension requires a contract. there is something in the personal conduct policy that states a contract is required to hand downa suspension but that does not extend farther than that.

Now i am willing to assume for now that usa today has information that we do not but this assertion that it is obvious is laughable when dealing with arbitrary contracts.

And you'd still be wrong.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We've only been talking about Q owing 4 games to any team that signs him since 2005.

We talked ad nauseum about Bryant owing 2 games for his speeding in his Lambourghini.

The entire off season was about suspensions doled out by the NFL.

Where have you been? The people on here might as well be an authority on the subject, they're pretty well informed and on top of that I repeat, the blurb from the CBA couldn't be any clearer.

is there any evidence of a team signing someone that was previously suspended and actually then beginning to serve his suspension or are you just going by two guys that really dont prove anything either way?

 

[cleverusername]

Can you be suspended from a job you don't have?

Remember when Kramer got fired.

"It's hard to say this, but we're gonna have to let you go. "

" but I don't even really work here!"

" that what makes it so hard."

 

[theogt]

I can be suspended as a Tucson Police Officer without being on the force?

Tell me how. I think I'd like to test your theory.

Read my reply to ice about the different interpretations of the term "suspended."

Maybe that will help clear up your misunderstanding.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you still being intentionally stupid?

hey - didn't i ban you?? GO AWAY NOW!

you parroted the same tired crap and when i asked you to back up what you were claiming you said i should do your work o back you up.

WG found the USA Today article and now you thump your chest like you did something.

Its not being intentionally stupid. Its me being fully aware fo how petty you are.

 

[theogt]

It does seem the end result is the same.

But since he's not an NFL player currently, is not being in the NFL the same thing as being suspended by the NFL? Technically, am I currently suspended by the NFL. Since this doesn't appear to be detailed in the CBA, I guess the lawyers (professional liars) would have to work it out - and I would have to also say that there is no "right" side in this debate.

It doesn't make sense that Tank could technically be serving his suspension right now. But it is possible.

I'm not sure I'd say it "doesn't make sense." It makes just as much sense logically as him not serving it currently.

 

[superpunk]

I can be suspended as a Tucson Police Officer without being on the force?

Tell me how. I think I'd like to test your theory.

If you were initially a police officer, and while still a police officer, you were suspended - only to be subsequently fired - I could see where you could argue that the time you were fired is equivalent to the suspension - and so you could reapply for the force suggesting that you had already served your suspension by means of your firing.

I'm dizzy.

It might not be likely, but if the collective bargaining agreement is not specific, I can see where an argument could be made that Tank is out of the league either way - and that is equivalent to a suspension.

 

[dallasfaniac]

My question: When we are talking about must be under contract, blah blah blah, what exactly does that mean?

When Julius becomes a free agent. Let's say he is all sad because the Cowboys didn't resign him. He goes on a bender, doing drugs, traffic violations, etc. all things that would get him a suspension.

Is Goodell going to wait until a new team signs him before dishing out his sentence or after? Can Goodell assign a sentence when he does not have a contract? And for that matter, is anything he does while not under contract punishable?

 

[iceberg]

is there any evidence of a team signing someone that was previously suspended and actually then beginning to serve his suspension or are you just going by two guys that really dont prove anything either way?

look - even after proven wrong you still want more.

you parroted the same tired crap and when i asked you to back up what you were claiming you said i should do your work o back you up.

WG found the USA Today article and now you thump your chest like you did something.

Its not being intentionally stupid. Its me being fully aware fo how petty you are.

i know this about you and refused to play. WG shot you down and showed you the light and you're still being anally fuzzy.

again, i know you'll have no way outside your own, and you proved that right here. so why should i look for evidence all you're going to do is shoot through and discredit anyway?

don't get mad at me for not playing your stupid mindgames.