Ezekiel Elliott could get completely banished from the NFL

Ranched

"We Are Penn State"
Messages
34,885
Reaction score
84,325
Trouty said:
Did it sound like a purr? :laugh::muttley:
Click to expand...
kbtV8zN.gif
 
Cowboys22

Cowboys22

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,507
Reaction score
11,384
TheKey said:
Under what reasoning do they qualify for that?
Click to expand...

Back in the early 60's there was a court case that determined that the teams getting together and negotiating tv rights as a whole violated anti trust laws so congress passed a law in 1961 giving them an anti trust exemption saying that teams in a league are not truly competitors but are essentially partners.
 
JD_KaPow

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,072
Reaction score
10,836
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Cowboys22 said:
Don't know what you mean. The NFL long ago was issued an anti trust exemption. It's a widely known fact.
Click to expand...
Cowboys22 said:
Back in the early 60's there was a court case that determined that the teams getting together and negotiating tv rights as a whole violated anti trust laws so congress passed a law in 1961 giving them an anti trust exemption saying that teams in a league are not truly competitors but are essentially partners.
Click to expand...
The NFL does not have a broad anti-trust exemption. Only MLB has that, which stems from an odd Supreme Court decision in the '20s that ruled that MLB is not interstate commerce. No other sports league enjoys that status.

The Sports Broadcasting Act in 1961 exempted the NFL and other sports leagues from anti-trust for the purposes of negotiating broadcasting rights, but that's not relevant here.

Anti-trust issues don't apply here because the players are unionized, and collective bargaining agreements can in fact violate anti-trust rules. So, a player can be banned from the entire NFL if and only if the collective bargaining agreement allows for it.
 
haleyrules

haleyrules

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,060
Reaction score
42,877
PA Cowboy Fan said:
They are making him out to be a monster. He's far from it. I've seen plenty of players that have done a lost worse than Elliott and they get a slap on the wrist. The guy is immature and until I see more than he said she said I'm going to believe him.
Click to expand...
Amen. Its the pathetic sissified times we are suffering through.
 
RoyTheHammer

RoyTheHammer

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,801
Reaction score
1,850
LocimusPrime said:
They will eventually....it's a work in process. I don't like it either, but I understand their point of view. They wanna crack down hard and send a message to all players. We messed up in the past, but we are gonna be tough from now on. Starting today.
Click to expand...

Better to kill 1000 innocent men than let 1 murderer go free, right?
 

diefree666

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,529
Reaction score
4,153
RoyTheHammer said:
Better to kill 1000 innocent men than let 1 murderer go free, right?
Click to expand...


The famous quote that better 1000 guilty go free rather than one innocent man be jailed always made me Very angry.

Because what about the past and future victims of that 1000 guilty. According to this they do not matter. I want to say to those that spout that garbage
"So if one of that thousand molests your son or rapes your daughter or kills your wife or husband its OK with you since you made a stand on principle?"
 
RJ_MacReady

RJ_MacReady

It's all in the reflexes
Messages
3,974
Reaction score
7,123
One question I have:
- The first time offense of DV results in a 6-game suspension
- Second time = Lifetime ban

Got it. Clear cut.

But the NFL has suspended him for "Conduct detrimental to the league". It's the work around for saying "He was never charged/convicted, but we felt he did it and are punishing him in the catch-all, grey area of the rules".

So if he actually gets charged/convicted of DV next time (for the first time) and they actually suspend him for DV...will that be his first or second offense to the letter of their rules? It sounds like it'll be his first, true DV offense to me. Am I thinking too much like a lawyer in that the verbiage means something? The grey-area can work for and against you.

Aria, get in here and convince me that he'll surely be banned for life with the next offense and that I'm a bad person for asking this question.
 
Last edited:
aria

aria

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,543
Reaction score
16,793
mcompact said:
One question I have:
- The first time offense of DV results in a 6-game suspension
- Second time = Lifetime ban

Got it. Clear cut.

But the NFL has suspended him for "Conduct detrimental to the league". It's the work around for saying "He was never charged/convicted, but we felt he did it and are punishing him in the catch-all, grey area of the rules".

So if he actually gets charged/convicted of DV next time (for the first time) and they actually suspend him for DV...will that be his first or second offense to the letter of their rules? It sounds like it'll be his first, true DV offense to me. Am I thinking too much like a lawyer in that the verbiage means something? The grey-area can work for and against you.

Aria, get in here and convince me that he'll surely be banned for life with the next offense and that I'm a bad person for asking this question.
Click to expand...
Haha, no issue here bud, good, legitimate question and I'm curious what the answer is as well. As dumb as Zeke is, I'm not "too" worried he'll get suspended permanently. The NFL is obviously changing their ways but to get thrown out I would imagine it would have to take A LOT.

Then again, the NFL pretty much does what they want to and I also figured Zeke would have kept out of trouble after these allegations so nothing would surprise me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top