No Greg Hardy ruling yet, too many days later

[Section446]

missed 15 games with pay, NFL doesn't view that as a suspension, nor should they really. Had he been found guilty, do you think he should have been cleared to start week 1?

While not a popular opinion, I'm of the opinion that the NFL shouldn't be above the law. If the law that governs our land didn't see it fit to come down on Greg Hardy, who is the NFL to do so? I recognize that the charges being dropped doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't guilty, but the law seems to have moved on from the case, while the NFL intensifies its witch hunt. If he had been found guilty, and the charges hadn't been dropped, then the NFL has free reign to do as they wish, but that simply isn't the case here. Again, this isn't a Cowboys thing, I just have a real problem with the NFL being more stringent than the law.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I understand why people say that missing games with pay is no punishment... but I do know that police officers, etc. that are "suspended with pay", still look at that as being punished.

And while it sucks for them when they are cleared of any wrong doing, I don't think the correct response for those who have been found guilty of something is to say, they have been punished, let's move on.

 

[Section446]

I understand why people say that missing games with pay is no punishment... but I do know that police officers, etc. that are "suspended with pay", still look at that as being punished.

I absolutely think that to the majority of NFL players, missing a game is missing a game, pay or not. You have to keep in mind that these guys are some of the most competitive people on the planet, and a lot of them have egos the size of the planet. Hardy might be a bad example, but let's take Peterson for example. Before he lost an entire season, he was already a shoe-in for the HoF, and it wasn't beyond the realm of possibility that he could break the all-time rushing record. Now, having lost an entire season, there will be arguments against him getting in the HoF on the first ballot, and he stands little chance of breaking any all-time records. Not to mention, his name has been drug through the mud.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

While not a popular opinion, I'm of the opinion that the NFL shouldn't be above the law. If the law that governs our land didn't see it fit to come down on Greg Hardy, who is the NFL to do so?

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but most people feel that if they were in Hardy's predicament, but worked a real job, they would have been let go, especially if it involved you being visible.

 

[erod]

The league knows it will get it's tail kicked in federal court on this.

Can't help but envision Mara in the background trying to delay this ruling. He doesn't want Eli facing Dallas with Hardy.

 

[AsthmaField]

And while it sucks for them when they are cleared of any wrong doing, I don't think the correct response for those who have been found guilty of something is to say, they have been punished, let's move on.

I'm no lawyer, but I do know that "time served" can be taken into account when doling out the punishment (sentencing).

Anyway, like I said, I understand points on both sides.

 

[Section446]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but most people feel that if they were in Hardy's predicament, but worked a real job, they would have been let go, especially if it involved you being visible.

You're countering opinions, but I have yet to see your opinion on the matter stated. How many games should Hardy miss for his alleged crime that was later dismissed?

 

[superonyx]

Sarcasm man.

Sorry I missed the sarcasm on that one.

 

[Merlin]

missed 15 games with pay, NFL doesn't view that as a suspension, nor should they really. Had he been found guilty, do you think he should have been cleared to start week 1?

That is really a joke cause the NFL could say time served and then hit him with a fine equivalent to however games he should have got and that does not include 10. The NFL didn't even put Hardy on the list until after they did so with Adrian Peterson. They did it because of public pressure and because they did it with AP.

 

[AsthmaField]

That is really a joke cause the NFL could say time served and then hit him with a fine equivalent to however games he should have got and that does not include 10. The NFL didn't even put Hardy on the list until after they did so with Adrian Peterson. They did it because of public pressure and because they did it with AP.

If I were Hardy's lawyer, I very well might take that angle. If the judge determines that the punishment for Hardy should be 4 games... then I would counter that he's already missed that many games but did get paid. So I would suggest that he already missed the 4 (+) games, he should just pay the fine now but he should be able to play since he's "paid" that part of his punishment.

 

[Galian Beast]

It is amazing that the Player's Union does not demand a true unbiased 3rd party for appeals. Maybe they will at some point after the Aug 13th court date on Goodell's contempt of court hearing.

It would be funny if Goddell got jail time or suspended in the contempt hearing.

You might very well be the worst poster on this board....

The Players Union sought a decision by Doty that Henderson was a partial arbitrator, and the court did not rule on that at this time.

Goodell isn't getting JAIL time in a civil contempt motion. Doty also has no power to suspend Goodell.

 

[speedkilz88]

And while it sucks for them when they are cleared of any wrong doing, I don't think the correct response for those who have been found guilty of something is to say, they have been punished, let's move on.

Hardy wasn't found guilty.

 

[xwalker]

You might very well be the worst poster on this board....

The Players Union sought a decision by Doty that Henderson was a partial arbitrator, and the court did not rule on that at this time.

Goodell isn't getting JAIL time in a civil contempt motion. Doty also has no power to suspend Goodell.

It was a joke, but I realize you wouldn't get it, You don't seem to be a well liked poster around here.

 

[Galian Beast]

I absolutely think that to the majority of NFL players, missing a game is missing a game, pay or not. You have to keep in mind that these guys are some of the most competitive people on the planet, and a lot of them have egos the size of the planet. Hardy might be a bad example, but let's take Peterson for example. Before he lost an entire season, he was already a shoe-in for the HoF, and it wasn't beyond the realm of possibility that he could break the all-time rushing record. Now, having lost an entire season, there will be arguments against him getting in the HoF on the first ballot, and he stands little chance of breaking any all-time records. Not to mention, his name has been drug through the mud.

Imagine you are Samsung and your competitor is Apple. Let's say in some scenario you are prevented from selling any phones on the market for two years, but your profits remain the same. Would you be okay with this? Or would you still recognize that your inability to be competitive for two years has diminished your market share?

By not playing in games, Hardy is not able to showcase his ability. He can not create a brand for himself. Other players who are ranked similarly to him now leap frog him on the market, because they have a lengthier resume. His ability to become a hall of fame player in regards to stats is also diminished.

Anyone who suggests that a year away from football paid or unpaid isn't a punishment clearly doesn't understand disciplinary action or business.

 

[Galian Beast]

It was a joke, but I realize you wouldn't get it, You don't seem to be a well liked poster around here.

Oh, anytime you say something ridiculous, I should take it as a joke. I got it.

Not well liked? Maybe not by you and your ilk, but I've had many pleasant comments from members here, thank you.

 

[Section446]

Imagine you are Samsung and your competitor is Apple. Let's say in some scenario you are prevented from selling any phones on the market for two years, but your profits remain the same. Would you be okay with this? Or would you still recognize that your inability to be competitive for two years has diminished your market share?

By not playing in games, Hardy is not able to showcase his ability. He can not create a brand for himself. Other players who are ranked similarly to him now leap frog him on the market, because they have a lengthier resume. His ability to become a hall of fame player in regards to stats is also diminished.

Anyone who suggests that a year away from football paid or unpaid isn't a punishment clearly doesn't understand disciplinary action or business.

Just to go a little further, he plays all of last year and gets 15 sacks, he's signing a long-term deal worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 million.

 

[xwalker]

Oh, anytime you say something ridiculous, I should take it as a joke. I got it.

Not well liked? Maybe not by you and your ilk, but I've had many pleasant comments from members here, thank you.

Not statistically.

 

[Galian Beast]

Just to go a little further, he plays all of last year and gets 15 sacks, he's signing a long-term deal worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 million.

70 million? Mario Williams got 6 year 96 million dollars. The biggest thing that Hardy lost was that guaranteed money. The Cowboys actually did pretty right by him with what he is getting paid this year.

But if he gets hurt this year or has a sub prime year.... he will lose millions that he already earned.

 

[Galian Beast]

Not statistically.

I think you've proven you don't even know what the word means....

 

[Nightman]

Not statistically.

He has a LIPO* score of 226


* LIPO score is likes to posts ratio out of 1000

Yours is pretty solid at 496