No Greg Hardy ruling yet, too many days later

[Rogah]

I'm wondering if tomorrow (july 3rd) isn't the day the NFL sneaks its' ruling out?

I would bet the league office is closed tomorrow. I suppose they could arrange for a press release and make some people work, but Friday is the holiday for most businesses.

It's effectively a 'non-holiday holiday' for all intents and purposes, and it's a Friday leading into the 4th of July weekend. I see it as the perfect time for the overly image-conscious league to try to slip one by.

And the more I'm thinking about it, the more I expect a reduction to 2 games. I think the league will try to get Hardy to take that deal and avoid having this thing dragged into the courts.

2 games is the same punishment originally given to Ray Rice, and that didn't go terribly well for the league, so I don't see them making that mistake again.

I think they know that if they push it, they're headed back to court, with Hardy likely requesting and being granted an injunction allowing him to play, and having to explain in court how they have completely mishandled their player discipline system.

That opens up a huge can of worms that I don't think the league wants the courts involved in.

I think the league learned over the past year that it is far, far better to go to court and lose and be forced to reduce a suspension against their will than it is to "under-punish" someone on their own and have to deal with all the negative PR fallout.

 

[erod]

2 games is the same punishment originally given to Ray Rice, and that didn't go terribly well for the league, so I don't see them making that mistake again.
I think the league learned over the past year that it is far, far better to go to court and lose and be forced to reduce a suspension against their will than it is to "under-punish" someone on their own and have to deal with all the negative PR fallout.

True, but if you constantly get your rulings massively wrong, it says little about your understanding of your own rules.

 

[Rogah]

True, but if you constantly get your rulings massively wrong, it says little about your understanding of your own rules.

The rules are there are no rules. They're making it all up as they go.

But that brings us back to the point that, since they are just making it all up, it is better to over-punish now and lose later in court than it is to pull another Ray Rice maneuver. There is no national outrage at Roger Goodell and the league office when they over-punish beyond their scope.

 

[speedkilz88]

I wonder if the league keeps breaking their own rules and in essence defying the court, Judge Doty will stop them from enforcing any more rules. Seems like at some point the courts will have enough.

 

[erod]

The rules are there are no rules. They're making it all up as they go.

But that brings us back to the point that, since they are just making it all up, it is better to over-punish now and lose later in court than it is to pull another Ray Rice maneuver. There is no national outrage at Roger Goodell and the league office when they over-punish beyond their scope.

No, the rule was....no suspension for first offense. The rule was changed to six games, but that was after this incident.

The league ruled 10 games because they pretended this was four separate incidents, which is absurd.

An appeal would likely reduce it to no suspension, and I think the league may be negotiating with Hardy to avoid an appeal altogether. I wouldn't even be surprised if money was changing hands for the two games missed.

And while Goodell avoids criticism of his stance on DV, he loses more respect in his ability to administer the rules in his league. This plays into the contempt case he's facing.

 

[speedkilz88]

I agree. But they aren't necessarily because of the exempt list. My point was that a player doesn't really have a choice whether to agree to the exempt list if the alternative is to give the team the option to cut them. With the exempt list, only in the most egregious case will the team go ahead and cut the player regardless of the exempt list.

Perhaps, when all is weighed, the exempt list is favorable to the players, but the idea that it's not taken into account when determining the ultimate punishment is a joke.

Ray McDonald refused the exempt list didn't he?

 

[Rogah]

And while Goodell avoids criticism of his stance on DV, he loses more respect in his ability to administer the rules in his league. This plays into the contempt case he's facing.

And he would rather face 1,000 contempt charges which all essentially come down to "over-punishing" than have to go through the ringer again for "under-punishing" like he did last year.

 

[Stash]

I would bet the league office is closed tomorrow. I suppose they could arrange for a press release and make some people work, but Friday is the holiday for most businesses.

I'm not sure on that one. But if anyone in the league is working tomorrow, I think the news comes out then.

2 games is the same punishment originally given to Ray Rice, and that didn't go terribly well for the league, so I don't see them making that mistake again.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the league eventually forced to reinstate Rice based on the fact that the penalty when he committed his act was in fact two games? As I understand it, they were forced to rescind his indefinite suspension.

I think the league learned over the past year that it is far, far better to go to court and lose and be forced to reduce a suspension against their will than it is to "under-punish" someone on their own and have to deal with all the negative PR fallout.

But I think the league has also learned that the way they're currently doing business isn't working and the courts will soon grow tired of dealing with every dispute between the league and its' players. I think if they see much more of it, the courts will see the need to step in and correct a league which obviously can't handle it themselves.

I don't think they want that.

 

[Rogah]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the league eventually forced to reinstate Rice based on the fact that the penalty when he committed his act was in fact two games? As I understand it, they were forced to rescind his indefinite suspension.

There was no outrage when the NFL lost in court in the Ray Rice case. There was no outrage when the NFL lost in court with Peterson.

But there was plenty of outrage at the 2-game suspension they originally announced for Rice.

But I think the league has also learned that the way they're currently doing business isn't working and the courts will soon grow tired of dealing with every dispute between the league and its' players.

What does that even mean? How do the courts get tired of doing their jobs?

The only thing the league has learned is that it is far far better to over-punish then lose in court than what happened with Ray Rice originally.

I think if they see much more of it, the courts will see the need to step in and correct a league which obviously can't handle it themselves.

I don't think they want that.

Um, last time I checked this was still the United States. Courts can adjudicate matters presented before them. They cannot just unilaterally step in and take over the way the NFL is run.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

The delay in the ruling necessarily shortens Hardy’s window for challenging the case in court. Which in turn increases the chances of Hardy seeking a preliminary injunction that allows him to play while the litigation proceeds. Which means that Hardy could be suiting up for Week One against the Giants.

now that would be funny

 

[ErikWilliamsHeadSlap]

And he would rather face 1,000 contempt charges which all essentially come down to "over-punishing" than have to go through the ringer again for "under-punishing" like he did last year.

Stop making ridiculous statements. Everyone saw the Rice video and then the **** hit the fan. Completely different scenario from a PR perspective. There is no tangible proof to replay on every channel 24-7 with the Hardy allegations. The league looks even worse when they are publicly defeated in court. Not only do they look inept for being unable to follow their own rules, but it just highlights once again how inadequate they were when it came to dealing with DV. The league could have avoided any bad PR from the Hardy case by following their own rules, citing previous court decisions and simply pointing out that Hardy hasn't been convicted of anything.

 

[Stash]

There was no outrage when the NFL lost in court in the Ray Rice case. There was no outrage when the NFL lost in court with Peterson.

But there was plenty of outrage at the 2-game suspension they originally announced for Rice.

The outrage came after the tape was released and everyone saw it for themselves.

What does that even mean? How do the courts get tired of doing their jobs?

Is it the courts' job to solve repeated disputes between sports owners and unions? I think they have bigger and better issues to deal with. And any league that continues to fail in handling its' own business will eventually have someone step in and examine how they do business and possibly handle things for them. I don't think the NFL wants any part of that proposition.

The only thing the league has learned is that it is far far better to over-punish then lose in court than what happened with Ray Rice originally.
Um, last time I checked this was still the United States. Courts can adjudicate matters presented before them. They cannot just unilaterally step in and take over the way the NFL is run.

I never said they can unilaterally step in and run things, but I don't think the NFL would be happy to have the government step in and closely examine the way they handle everything in their multi-billion dollar enterprise.

 

[dogberry]

If I were to follow the logical progression of stasheroo's last paragraph, the discussion would leave legal and enter xxxxxxxxx.

Then that nice Mr. Brain Paint would show up and people would ge.............
........

 

[Nightman]

There was no outrage when the NFL lost in court in the Ray Rice case. There was no outrage when the NFL lost in court with Peterson.

But there was plenty of outrage at the 2-game suspension they originally announced for Rice.
What does that even mean? How do the courts get tired of doing their jobs?

The only thing the league has learned is that it is far far better to over-punish then lose in court than what happened with Ray Rice originally.
Um, last time I checked this was still the United States. Courts can adjudicate matters presented before them. They cannot just unilaterally step in and take over the way the NFL is run.

The last thing the NFL wants is Congressional Oversight and them taking a look at the Anti-trust exemptions that exist right now. They better start shaping up or their will be some consequences.

 

[Stash]

The last thing the NFL wants is Congressional Oversight and them taking a look at the Anti-trust exemptions that exist right now. They better start shaping up or their will be some consequences.

Thanks. You summed it up much better than I have thus far.

 

[Hoofbite]

Agree. Something needs to be done about the exempt list. It is, without doubt, effectively a punishment that can have severe consequences to the player, yet the league gets to treat it as if it's no punishment at all.

I doubt they'll do anything about it.

It was rarely used before last season and ideally it wouldn't have to be used in the future as all new cases would fall under the new DV policy.

Then again, I guess DV charges put a Hardy on the exempt list pending resolution.

Not sure if that's how they'll go about it moving forward. If a player is charged with DV he goes to the exempt list until his case is resolved.

That would leave a player available until charged so accusations and/or arrests would not be enough to sideline a guy.

Who knows. I doubt anything changes about it because the player is paid and that's really the NFLPA's bottom line.

 

[Nightman]

I doubt they'll do anything about it.

It was rarely used before last season and ideally it wouldn't have to be used in the future as all new cases would fall under the new DV policy.

Then again, I guess DV charges put a Hardy on the exempt list pending resolution.

Not sure if that's how they'll go about it moving forward. If a player is charged with DV he goes to the exempt list until his case is resolved.

That would leave a player available until charged so accusations and/or arrests would not be enough to sideline a guy.

Who knows. I doubt anything changes about it because the player is paid and that's really the NFLPA's bottom line.

I think it depends on the timing of the offense. If it is after Week One when salaries are guaranteed I wouldn't recommend going on the Commissioner's Exempt List.

If it is during the offseason they aren't getting paid yet anyways but as the season approaches they might want to get paid over being released.

 

[Hoofbite]

The last thing the NFL wants is Congressional Oversight and them taking a look at the Anti-trust exemptions that exist right now. They better start shaping up or their will be some consequences.

Congressional Oversight?

 

[Hoofbite]

I think it depends on the timing of the offense. If it is after Week One when salaries are guaranteed I wouldn't recommend going on the Commissioner's Exempt List.

If it is during the offseason they aren't getting paid yet anyways but as the season approaches they might want to get paid over being released.

Teams can still tell players to stay away for up to 4 games, I believe. And they could bench them for as many as they like.

Going on the exempt list is a hell of a lot less messy than forcing the team to use whatever means they have at their disposal to achieve the same outcome.

It's not like the teams are influenced any less than the league when it comes to bad PR. If a guy has charges brought against him, the team will protect its image and cave to public pressure should they allow the guy to play.

 

[erod]

The real problem here is that the NFL was stupid enough to give him a 10-game suspension when there was nothing in place to support that.

From a PR standpoint, it would have been a lot easier to go from 6 games to 2 than it would be to go from 10 games to 2.

And when the suspension should be 0 games by rule, it makes this whole thing messier.

I wish they'd just uphold their suspension so we can get this thing to federal court.