No Greg Hardy ruling yet, too many days later

[Stash]

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.

I agree with everything other than this part. While I'm confident that Hardy would win and have his suspension greatly reduced in court, if the NFL comes back with 2 games, I might just take it and be happy rather than risking anything more or later in the season in a legal battle.

 

[erod]

I agree with everything other than this part. While I'm confident that Hardy would win and have his suspension greatly reduced in court, if the NFL comes back with 2 games, I might just take it and be happy rather than risking anything more or later in the season in a legal battle.

I don't see that happening, but that would be cool with me, too.

Honestly, I don't think they know what to do. They've cornered themselves in an office full of Giants fans.

 

[AsthmaField]

I agree with everything other than this part. While I'm confident that Hardy would win and have his suspension greatly reduced in court, if the NFL comes back with 2 games, I might just take it and be happy rather than risking anything more or later in the season in a legal battle.

That would be nice... but the NFL isn't coming back with 2 games. It won't happen.

 

[Tabascocat]

If the NFL would have just came out originally with a 6 game suspension, I would be ok with that. Instead, they divvy up one night of "alleged" incidents into four different instances and did not file it under DV. They lost all credibility at that point showing their agenda to appease the masses.

Initial six game suspension appealed down to 4.......all good to go. That would have been the best scenario for both parties.

 

[Stash]

That would be nice... but the NFL isn't coming back with 2 games. It won't happen.

I think that's their best bet to wiggle their way out of what has become another embarrassment.

Other than completely throwing the suspension out and facing that huge backlash, I think two games would allow them to resolve the situation without going back to the courts.

 

[AsthmaField]

I think that's their best bet to wiggle their way out of what has become another embarrassment.

Other than completely throwing the suspension out and facing that huge backlash, I think two games would allow them to resolve the situation without going back to the courts.

Man... I hope you're right.

I think it will be in the courts though.

 

[Nightman]

Congressional Oversight?

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

Amazingly the pressure from Congress was coming from the NFL being too lenient on DV. I guess that explains a lot of their decisions.

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

I don't think they are looking to go to 2 games. I think the chose 10 with the anticipation that a deal would be reached on 6.

 

[Hoofbite]

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

Amazingly the pressure from Congress was coming from the NFL being too lenient on DV. I guess that explains a lot of their decisions.

Meh, I don't think that is all that big of a deal. So they re-apply every 5 years. 1 or 2 incidents that get everyone riled up out of a 5 year span isn't going to prevent them from being granted the exemption and I doubt there's a single politician who would be willing to sacrifice the sport on behalf of 1 or 2 incidents.

 

[Stash]

I don't think they are looking to go to 2 games. I think the chose 10 with the anticipation that a deal would be reached on 6.

Do you see Hardy accepting 6?

I don't. I think anything less than two is definitely going to court.

 

[Nightman]

Meh, I don't think that is all that big of a deal. So they re-apply every 5 years. 1 or 2 incidents that get everyone riled up out of a 5 year span isn't going to prevent them from being granted the exemption and I doubt there's a single politician who would be willing to sacrifice the sport on behalf of 1 or 2 incidents.

I was completely wrong about why they were even talking about it.

Congress thinks they weren't taking DV seriously enough. That explains why they are being so hard on Hardy and Peterson.

 

[Rogah]

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

Not true. The videotape was the icing on the cake, but there was outrage from the very first day Goodell announced the original 2 week suspension.

Is it the courts' job to solve repeated disputes between sports owners and unions?

Um, resolving disputes between conflicting parties is the job of the civil courts, yes.

I think they have bigger and better issues to deal with.

What do you think, there's just 1 court of law in our entire country and if they are occupied by the NFL and NFLPA, then everyone else has to wait and twiddle their thumbs??

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.

An no politician wants to step in and tell the NFL "you guys are too lenient on domestic violence."

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.

That's why the league will continue to over-punish.

You don't seem to realize that you are supporting the point I am trying to make.

 

[Rogah]

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.

Exactly. They don't want Congress to step in, which is why they will continue over-punishing players who beat up women.

There is no public outrage when the NFL over-punishes someone, even if it gets overturned in court. Congress is not going to step in and attack the NFL for doing something that the public generally supports. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

 

[Stash]

Not true. The videotape was the icing on the cake, but there was outrage from the very first day Goodell announced the original 2 week suspension.

Sorry, but I didn't see that outrage until after the videotape's release. Then it hit the fan. And the NFL has been scrambling and making things worse ever since.

Um, resolving disputes between conflicting parties is the job of the civil courts, yes.
What do you think, there's just 1 court of law in our entire country and if they are occupied by the NFL and NFLPA, then everyone else has to wait and twiddle their thumbs??
An no politician wants to step in and tell the NFL "you guys are too lenient on domestic violence."
That's why the league will continue to over-punish.

That's not what it's about, it's about the league misinterpreting it's own agreed to rules and taking up the court's time repeatedly to stop them from breaking agreed to policy. Again and again.

You don't seem to realize that you are supporting the point I am trying to make.

If you think so. My point is that if the NFL pushes this too far, and the courts are repeatedly having to tell them how to run their business, they may do just that. In more ways than simply player discipline. The league could open a can of worms and live to regret it.

 

[theogt]

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

If the NFLPA took that position, it would be ironic. It's the affect on the player's pay that makes it so punitive. Had Hardy played in all of 2014, then missed a few games in 2015 serving his suspension, he wouldn't be playing on a one year, incentive laden contract right now.

 

[Stash]

Exactly. They don't want Congress to step in, which is why they will continue over-punishing players who beat up women.

There is no public outrage when the NFL over-punishes someone, even if it gets overturned in court. Congress is not going to step in and attack the NFL for doing something that the public generally supports. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

And you're misinterpreting what people are saying.

It's not about 'punishing domestic violence'. Nobody's disagreeing with that. It should happen. But it's the way in which the NFL is doing it. Illegally, with nothing agreed upon between league and union and nothing based on established rules.

And these cases are repeatedly being taken to the courts with even those decisions being disregarded by a league operating as if it is above the law. It isn't and if they keep acting that way, they will find that out the hard (and costly) way.

 

[Rogah]

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

Amazingly the pressure from Congress was coming from the NFL being too lenient on DV. I guess that explains a lot of their decisions.

Congratulations on discovering what I have been saying all along. The NFL will never again allow themselves to be accused of being too lenient. Getting their rulings overturned in a court of law is fine. Going to court 3-4 times a year is no problem, even if they lose every single time. They will take that all day long because that's just not a big deal for them. No bad PR fallout from being too strict. No bad PR fallout from over-punishing an athlete, even if that punishment gets overturned.

But when you go too soft on an athlete that beats up women? That's when people get upset and that's when politicians threaten to get involved.

 

[Rogah]

Sorry, but I didn't see that outrage until after the videotape's release.

Then you must have been living in a cave. There was plenty of outrage because you seem to forget we had 1 video all along. People saw him dragging her out of the elevator. Yes, the 2nd video strengthened the criticism, but the outrage was there from the beginning. People were upset that he literally got half the punishment he would have gotten if he had tested positive for marijuana.

Then it hit the fan. And the NFL has been scrambling and making things worse ever since.

They haven't made things worse in their eyes. The public criticism of the NFL is nowhere near the levels it was at this time last year.

That's not what it's about, it's about the league misinterpreting it's own agreed to rules and taking up the court's time repeatedly to stop them from breaking agreed to policy. Again and again.

And it will keep happening again and again.

If you think so. My point is that if the NFL pushes this too far, and the courts are repeatedly having to tell them how to run their business, they may do just that. In more ways than simply player discipline. The league could open a can of worms and live to regret it.

Courts are not going to do that, period, end of story.

As bknight indicated, it is something that politicians could do, but they won't. No politician is going to criticize the NFL for over-punishing a guy who beats up women, even if they had to violate their own bylaws in doing so.

 

[Stash]

Courts are not going to do that, period, end of story.

Is that your 'official verdict' your honor?

As bknight indicated, it is something that politicians could do, but they won't. No politician is going to criticize the NFL for over-punishing a guy who beats up women, even if they had to violate their own bylaws in doing so.

Instead they'll sit back while someone blatantly ignores their rulings?

Sure they will.

And for the last time, it's not about the domestic violence, it's about making things up as they go along. With no agreed to rules and ending up in the courts in every case.

If the NFL wants to make it 20 games they can. They just gave to establish the rule and agree to the terms with the union. That's the part they continue to ignore.

 

[erod]

I don't think they are looking to go to 2 games. I think the chose 10 with the anticipation that a deal would be reached on 6.

He'd appeal that because, by rule, he shouldn't be suspended at all.