Greg Hardy's appeal is this week (May 28th)

[Corso]

No, he is still on the Commissioner's Exempt list.

The best case he would still get paid, but he would miss games until it was heard.

His only chance might be getting an injunction or stay from the Court, but that would be a longshot.

 

[Nightman]

It sucks, but the NFL has nothing to lose. They will drag it out and if they do lose in Court....."Oooops, sorry" but Hardy still misses a month.

Classic DA move of overcharging and then offering a terrible plea deal. They have nothing to lose but time. But a Defendant still has the real chance of doing real time or spending a ton on a credible defense.

 

[Corso]

It sucks, but the NFL has nothing to lose. They will drag it out and if they do lose in Court....."Oooops, sorry" but Hardy still misses a month.

Classic DA move of overcharging and then offering a terrible plea deal. They have nothing to lose but time. But a Defendant still has the real chance of doing real time or spending a ton on a credible defense.

I actually praise the NFL in playing this smart. The Hardy ordeal was basically a no win situation for the NFL and acting in this manner hurts them the least.
Everything is now being geared towards the next CBA negotiations (IMO) quickly coming and they need to be strong now and show the NFLPA as defenders of domestic abuse in the public eye as they close in on some very tough negotiations.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, he is still on the Commissioner's Exempt list.

The best case he would still get paid, but he would miss games until it was heard.

His only chance might be getting an injunction or stay from the Court, but that would be a longshot.

I don't think an injunction is that long of a shot. There are multiple cases recently resolved setting the law out quite clearly and a contempt of court claim pending that is sure to be pointed out. The court is not a fan of the league trying to disguise what they are doing by calling it something else like the blow by blow + guns punishment system or an exempt list. It does tie things up in court though. Have to love sophists.

There is text in a labor law that prohibits injunctions "arising out of a labor dispute' but this is arising out of a disciplinary process involving a criminal matter not a lockout/strike. That law is about not allowing courts to terminate strikes and lockouts by injunction. Given how equal protection works that makes sense but I doubt that it will mean completely hands off everywhere. Maybe the courts decide to completely neuter themselves but I doubt it.

 

[Nightman]

I don't think an injunction is that long of a shot. There are multiple cases recently resolved setting the law out quite clearly and a contempt of court claim pending that is sure to be pointed out. The court is not a fan of the league trying to disguise what they are doing by calling it something else like the blow by blow + guns punishment system or an exempt list. It does tie things up in court though. Have to love sophists.

There is text in a labor law that prohibits injunctions "arising out of a labor dispute' but this is arising out of a disciplinary process involving a criminal matter not a lockout/strike. That law is about not allowing courts to terminate strikes and lockouts by injunction. Given how equal protection works that makes sense but I doubt that it will mean completely hands off everywhere. Maybe the courts decide to completely neuter themselves but I doubt it.

Thanks for that.

I just fear Hardy being on the right side of things and still getting the shaft because of delays and Court schedules.

 

[AzorAhai]

I don't think an injunction is that long of a shot. There are multiple cases recently resolved setting the law out quite clearly and a contempt of court claim pending that is sure to be pointed out. The court is not a fan of the league trying to disguise what they are doing by calling it something else like the blow by blow + guns punishment system or an exempt list. It does tie things up in court though. Have to love sophists.

There is text in a labor law that prohibits injunctions "arising out of a labor dispute' but this is arising out of a disciplinary process involving a criminal matter not a lockout/strike. That law is about not allowing courts to terminate strikes and lockouts by injunction. Given how equal protection works that makes sense but I doubt that it will mean completely hands off everywhere. Maybe the courts decide to completely neuter themselves but I doubt it.

With the timing of it all and it likely taking around 3 months, even if expedited an injunction may be his best shot of not getting screwed over. How long would he have to wait before being granted/denied an injunction? Would it be at the hearing or would it be handled earlier?

 

[Nightman]

I actually praise the NFL in playing this smart. The Hardy ordeal was basically a no win situation for the NFL and acting in this manner hurts them the least.
Everything is now being geared towards the next CBA negotiations (IMO) quickly coming and they need to be strong now and show the NFLPA as defenders of domestic abuse in the public eye as they close in on some very tough negotiations.

Those guys should have never gone on the Commissioner's Exempt list. Their salaries were already guaranteed after playing Week One and they would have got justice a lot sooner, either way.

Besides that, the NFL is playing a game with the Courts that could one day really blow up in their faces. Not worth it just to stick it to Rice, Hardy and AD. There will always be more cases.

 

[Corso]

Those guys should have never gone on the Commissioner's Exempt list. Their salaries were already guaranteed after playing Week One and they would have got justice a lot sooner, either way.

Besides that, the NFL is playing a game with the Courts that could one day really blow up in their faces. Not worth it just to stick it to Rice, Hardy and AD. There will always be more cases.

I almost guarantee you they'll survive and probably thrive. Despite court setbacks.
Like you said- there will always be more cases and that equally serves as distraction, if played well. I stopped following American politics full-time because it became less interesting as the politics of the NFL.
Truth.

 

[AzorAhai]

Those guys should have never gone on the Commissioner's Exempt list. Their salaries were already guaranteed after playing Week One and they would have got justice a lot sooner, either way.

Besides that, the NFL is playing a game with the Courts that could one day really blow up in their faces. Not worth it just to stick it to Rice, Hardy and AD. There will always be more cases.

It leads me to believe they thought it would be resolved a lot sooner. Particularly Hardy. I doubt Hardy ever imagined he would be on the exempt list 9 months later with no end in sight.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

With the timing of it all and it likely taking around 3 months, even if expedited an injunction may be his best shot of not getting screwed over. How long would he have to wait before being granted/denied an injunction? Would it be at the hearing or would it be handled earlier?

Peterson sued in October and his case was heard in March. 5 months from now is October and a moot point. They could speed it up but his best chance is an immediate injunction. You have a repeat offender doing the same thing and the timing as you point out is critical. SCOTUS has ruled in the past that losing any time in a football player's career is irreparable harm. The grounds certainly seem to be there but I am no lawyer.

 

[Nightman]

Peterson sued in October and his case was heard in March. 5 months from now is October and a moot point. They could speed it up but his best chance is an immediate injunction. You have a repeat offender doing the same thing and the timing as you point out is critical. SCOTUS has ruled in the past that losing any time in a football player's career is irreparable harm. The grounds certainly seem to be there but I am no lawyer.

That contempt of court order the NFLPA filed last week could be the key to the whole timeline.

 

[cowboyvic]

The bottom line is Hardy is getting 10 games. this appeal is going no where. Henderson is a puppet of Goodell. he will rubber stamp these 10 games. and i think the courts will up hold it. so the man will not be allowed to play NFL football for 27 games. unreal.

 

[AzorAhai]

Peterson sued in October and his case was heard in March. 5 months from now is October and a moot point. They could speed it up but his best chance is an immediate injunction. You have a repeat offender doing the same thing and the timing as you point out is critical. SCOTUS has ruled in the past that losing any time in a football player's career is irreparable harm. The grounds certainly seem to be there but I am no lawyer.

Thats longer than I remember. Do you know when the injunction would be decided on? I'm assuming at a Pretrial hearing?

 

[Phoenix]

 

[AzorAhai]

The bottom line is Hardy is getting 10 games. this appeal is going no where. Henderson is a puppet of Goodell. he will rubber stamp these 10 games. and i think the courts will up hold it. so the man will not be allowed to play NFL football for 27 games. unreal.

Why would the courts uphold it? They already set the precedent with Peterson. Winning the court case is the least of the worries. The length it might take to win that case and getting an injunction are the issues.

 

[Corso]

The bottom line is Hardy is getting 10 games. this appeal is going no where. Henderson is a puppet of Goodell. he will rubber stamp these 10 games. and i think the courts will up hold it. so the man will not be allowed to play NFL football for 27 games. unreal.

Didn't you have an avatar of a guy with his head up where you'd never want your head to be? Now it's Rowdy? Why?
Am I mistaken?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thats longer than I remember. Do you know when the injunction would be decided on? I'm assuming at a Pretrial hearing?

I don't know the order but typically it's shortly after the case is filed. So maybe around July. Too many variables and unknowns.

 

[Corso]

Why would the courts uphold it? They already set the precedent with Peterson. Winning the court case is the least of the worries. The length it might take to win that case and getting an injunction are the issues.

Right now it's all about public perception for them (the NFL) as they ease into the first rounds of the next CBA negotiations (with the Union) in the coming years. This world has become so different since the internet and it's instant access to public opinion...
Totally wild stuff. I'm still trying to keep up with it all. Everything has had to adapt to the WWW and for some it's still difficult, but the rich have the money to employ experts and we are seeing future foundations being built with this crazy stuff that is currently affecting Our team. Better just buckle up and watch the festivities with crossed fingers. Nothing else we can do, except complain on a message board...

 

[AzorAhai]

Right now it's all about public perception for them (the NFL) as they ease into the first rounds of the next CBA negotiations (with the Union) in the coming years. This world has become so different since the internet and it's instant access to public opinion...
Totally wild stuff. I'm still trying to keep up with it all. Everything has had to adapt to the WWW and for some it's still difficult, but the rich have the money to employ experts and we are seeing future foundations being built with this crazy stuff that is currently affecting Our team. Better just buckle up and watch the festivities with crossed fingers. Nothing else we can do, except complain on a message board...

I fully expect the NFL, or rather appeal hearing to hold up. They would rather be overturned in court than to do what was collectively bargained. I was just asking why the courts would uphold it. They already set a precedent with Peterson and I see no reason Doty doesn't follow that precedent again.

 

[AzorAhai]

Confusion emerges regarding basis for Hardy discipline

Posted by Mike Florio on May 28, 2015, 9:46 PM EDT

The Greg Hardy appeal hearing has come and gone, and confusion has emerged regarding one of the most important aspects of the case.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Hardy and the NFL Players Association contend that the NFL failed to specify during the hearing whether league imposed on Hardy a 10-game suspension under the Personal Conduct Policy in force at the time of the alleged misconduct or under the version that came later in the year, following the Ray Rice debacle. Hardy and the NFLPA also contend that arbitrator Harold Henderson failed to force the NFL to say which version of the policy was used.

In an appearance last month on ESPN’s Outside the Lines, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash seemed to emphasize that the discipline was imposed under the old policy. But he also made it clear that the investigation occurred under the new procedures that were adopted after the Rice case.

The alleged confusion also comes in the wake of an effort by the union to have the NFL deemed to be in contempt of court for failing to comply with the court order issued in the case filed on behalf of Vikings running back Adrian Peterson. That motion specifically claims that the league applied the new policy retroactively to Hardy, in defiance of the ruling from Judge David Doty to the contrary in Peterson’s case.

(More)
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...emerges-regarding-basis-for-hardy-discipline/