Twitter: NFLPA files Greg Hardy appeal; asks for neutral arbitrator

[Rogah]

I already told you what the old system said and it solved your conundrum. Have you caught up now?

I cannot understand why you refuse to answer my very simple question. I guess you simply like to argue, but lack the courage of your convictions.

 

[Derinyar]

I do wonder if the NFL will do what every other sport does and hire independent arbiters for this appeal. It makes sense. I'm honestly a little surprised that the NFLPA hasn't managed to get that put in yet. I know the NFLPA is a weak union but seriously saying we aren't going to let the person that hands down the suspension hear an appeal isn't that unreasonable.

 

[Nightman]

So you double down on the handwave one more time. I admitted my mistake regarding NJ as opposed to TX law and it hasn't detracted from my overall point. NJ allows rich people to pay for their own rehab on a first offense. I'm not impressed.

The language of the Tagliabue CBA used to read about entering a plea deal or a conviction for a crime and it solves your little conundrum over the nametag on the conditional, intermediate plea.

I cannot understand why you refuse to answer my very simple question. I guess you simply like to argue, but lack the courage of your convictions.

You are the one making the 'he must be found guilty in a court of law' argument as the standard. But then you want to completely ignore the plea deal Rice made and the admission he made directly to the Commish.

You then try to ascribe some weight to the bench trial even though you know it has absolutely no standing once appealed. Hardy even had to be arraigned again after the bench trial.

No one is saying there absolutely has to be a conviction before any punishment, but there should at least be a trial.

 

[Rogah]

You are the one making the 'he must be found guilty in a court of law' argument as the standard.

You are obviously not following the conversation terribly well.

I am specifically saying I do not believe the NFL should limit themselves to only punishing players found guilty in a court of law. My reasoning is that if you only punish players found guilty in a court of law, then you can't punish Ray Rice.

But then you want to completely ignore the plea deal Rice made and the admission he made directly to the Commish.

No I don't. Ray Rice pleaded not guilty (despite what others in here have said) and was never found guilty in a court of law. However, I certainly support him being punished severely for what he did.

No one is saying there absolutely has to be a conviction before any punishment, but there should at least be a trial.

Well, Ray Rice never had a trial. Charges were dropped as he agreed to enter a pretrial diversionary program (key word: pretrial).

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I cannot understand why you refuse to answer my very simple question. I guess you simply like to argue, but lack the courage of your convictions.

I reject the premise of your question. What you are doing is called begging the question and its not an argument. I am not going to play along with your narrative.

I told you precisely what I thought the ideal for the conduct policy would be. That is the way I look at the situation. You aren't even arguing it so spare me the diatribe over conviction.

If you want to look at it in terms of the word choice on the temporary plea then you have at it. I'm not going to play along with your question whose premise I just now once again refuted.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are obviously not following the conversation terribly well.

I am specifically saying I do not believe the NFL should limit themselves to only punishing players found guilty in a court of law. My reasoning is that if you only punish players found guilty in a court of law, then you can't punish Ray Rice.
No I don't. Ray Rice pleaded not guilty (despite what others in here have said) and was never found guilty in a court of law. However, I certainly support him being punished severely for what he did.
Well, Ray Rice never had a trial. Charges were dropped as he agreed to enter a pretrial diversionary program (key word: pretrial).

Most plea agreements are pretrial. They still set out a punishment schedule. The wording of the old CBA still subsumes all of this even if you don't understand why.

 

[Nightman]

You are obviously not following the conversation terribly well.

I am specifically saying I do not believe the NFL should limit themselves to only punishing players found guilty in a court of law. My reasoning is that if you only punish players found guilty in a court of law, then you can't punish Ray Rice.
No I don't. Ray Rice pleaded not guilty (despite what others in here have said) and was never found guilty in a court of law. However, I certainly support him being punished severely for what he did.
Well, Ray Rice never had a trial. Charges were dropped as he agreed to enter a pretrial diversionary program (key word: pretrial).

Most plea agreements are pretrial. They still set out a punishment schedule. The wording of the old CBA still subsumes all of this even if you don't understand why.

He understands. He just wants to punish Hardy based on the bench trial and using Rice as an example of a player getting punished without being "convicted" helps his weak case.

No one is even arguing that a full conviction after a full trial is the only time a player can get suspended. Any admission of guilt, either to the Courts or the League is sufficient. But in Hardy's case, charges weren't even brought to trial and the League is still trying to pick and choose which evidence to use against Hardy.

It just doesn't work that way. Pictures cannot just speak for themselves. Someone has to testify under oath about their veracity and they also need to stand up to cross examination.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think the question of "Allowed" is the correct one. I think the question of what is sensible is the one we should be asking. When you go away from what the Law says or what a specific language or agreement says, you are opening yourself up to a lot of potential issue. The question of defending your position legally, defending yourself financially the defending yourself against public opinion, all of those things are pretty much baked in the cake if you do not adhere to a certain defensible position. That is what the NFL is having to deal with now because they have gone away from this IMO.

 

[SportsGuru80]

Suspension will get reduced to 2-4 games...

 

[burmafrd]

Suspension will get reduced to 2-4 games...

I do not see how they can go for more than two games. He will probably be successful in getting his record expunged; therefore he has no criminal/police record for the incident. I imagine Doty would not look kindly on the NFL trying to use the now non existent court case for punishment. This case did not in any way shape or form come to the level of Ray Rice as regards the public; so any case for bringing the NFL in bad repute is shaky. Someone mentioned his weapons but as far as I can tell they were all legal. Does the NFL want the NRA on their case?

To be blunt I think the two game suspension is shaky to support. BUT I think that Hardy and his lawyers understand he is going to have to take some kind of hit.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

I cannot understand why you refuse to answer my very simple question. I guess you simply like to argue, but lack the courage of your convictions.

Seems every thread you post in has people "refusing" to answer your simple questions and somehow everybody that doesnt answer your questions lacks courage and conviction. Seems we have a pattern . . . . . . . . . .

 

[MeTed]

You are obviously not following the conversation terribly well.

I am specifically saying I do not believe the NFL should limit themselves to only punishing players found guilty in a court of law. My reasoning is that if you only punish players found guilty in a court of law, then you can't punish Ray Rice.
No I don't. Ray Rice pleaded not guilty (despite what others in here have said) and was never found guilty in a court of law. However, I certainly support him being punished severely for what he did.
Well, Ray Rice never had a trial. Charges were dropped as he agreed to enter a pretrial diversionary program (key word: pretrial).

IMO, the NFL should focus on what they do well. Let the legal experts do what they do well. This is an interesting debate over the burden of proof standard but my take is more simplistic in nature. I have yet to see any evidence that the NFL is capable of taking on this expanded role. Ray Rice, Adrian Petersen, Greg Hardy, Ray McDonald. The outcomes for each appear arbitrary, and subjective in nature. The NFL cannot even demonstrate legal precedent ..