The NFL has another option to get what they want

[Reality]

It may be true that it would garner attention from special interest groups, but why would the league want to incur that?

This PR issue is behind them because the woman apparently didn't care.

Furthermore, assuming that she didn't care, any special interest group's ire would be hypocritical.

Women aren't helpless and if this woman didn't mind, then that's her decision.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. The NFL hasn't been using a lot of common sense through this whole Elliott investigation and suspension process, so I'm not ready to assume they've gained any more common sense at this point.

 

[Philmonroe]

That's not actually true. A lot of abused women are afraid to come forward so the law protects them regardless. The video is all of the evidence they need. They do not need the victim to testify or file charges.

You sell that madness to some fool that will believe that. Next you'll tell me someone grabbing their girlfriends butt is sexual assault. I guess a lot of people even on here should be locked up then using that logic.

 

[Reality]

Scroll up and read what the league said on the matter. It's a non issue now. They ruled it didn't warrant any action due to the circumstances surrounding the incident. You know what those circumstances are? The fact that the girl said it was okay and the fact that she was flashing the crowd all day.

Right, but they can always find a way to revisit it. The famous "We did not see the video" that they had possession of incident in the Ray Rice ruling and later re-ruling. There is always a loophole somewhere just waiting.

 

[gmoney112]

Different incident, almost a year apart. It's not a "different cause" but a different incident completely. Otherwise, a player suspended for PEDs, marijuana, etc. would never be able to be suspended a second time.

So, they would drop this case, open a new case after they said it was closed, go through arbitration, and then rule on the suspension.

A Court would really love that.

 

[Reality]

You sell that madness to some fool that will believe that. Next you'll tell me someone grabbing their girlfriends butt is sexual assault. I guess a lot of people even on here should be locked up then using that logic.

Again, for the countless time, you are thinking CRIME .. I'm not talking crime. I'm saying the NFL has a lot of leeway and freedom of consideration as to what constitutes "conduct detrimental to the league."

That said, grabbing your girl friend's butt, breast, etc. is a lot different than exposing her breasts, butt, etc.

 

[Reality]

So, they would drop this case, open a new case after they said it was closed, go through arbitration, and then rule on the suspension.

A Court would really love that.

They could always say they went with the more serious case and now that it's on hold, they are revisiting the more recent event.

 

[Nova]

They don't need cooperation from her in this case because there is video evidence. Again, we're not talking a CRIME here .. we're talking "conduct detrimental to the league" which has a MUCH lower threshold to prove.

Now, I'm not saying the NFL would ultimately win a court battle over it, but if they were to issue a suspension for a second incident, the media would run non-stop with it and it would create the perception of a pattern of abuse/attacks against women. The NFL would put the focus back on Elliott in that situation, whether they ultimately win or lose.

Again, I'm not saying he's guilty of anything. I'm saying the NFL has options. Whether they are smart or good options is subjective in their eyes.

I get that you're not arguing for it. Honestly I though it was the route they should've gone in the first place.

"Zeke, you're making us look bad. Here's 2 games."

You absolutely could not question that decision. Hell, even I would accept it.

But the definiton of sexual assault revolves around consent.

And while the NFL doesn't have to abide by laws whilst disciplining their own employees, they have shown a strong pattern of needing victim cooperation to proceed with serious allegations such as DV or sexual assault.

I just think that kind of suspension would get thrown out in arbitration based on precedent; much like Greg Hardy's suspension was reduced from 10 to 4 games because that was the max DV charge that had been levied before the Ray Rice rule change.

 

[StarHead69]

He deliberately fixed an investigation so the NFL could look good for special interest groups that could never understand the concepts of fairness,

To look good for special interest groups whose members, for the most part, have absolutely NO interest in football at all. It's a phenomenon I've noticed lately, corporations going out of their way to placate a minuscule amount of loud mouthed sjws, while deeply offending their customer base.

 

[Reality]

You know what, as bat**** crazy and ridiculous as this idea is, I hope it happens, because the NFL would be done. There would be no defense for that. That's collusion and conspiracy and all sorts of huge offenses. The Supeme Court would have a field day.

I would love to have a final court ruling removing the NFL's ability to punish players

 

[Ghost12]

The NFL has the potential to still get what they want even if they vacate the suspension and write it off as "mistakes were made".

How? Simple ..

They can re-open the investigation into the shirt-pulled-down incident by Elliott. There's no rule that would prevent that as far as I know. They could treat him pulling the shirt down as "sexual assault" and "domestic violence" and say that despite no criminal charges being filed and lack of victim support, the video provides all of the evidence they need to suspend him.

Not only would that give them an opportunity to suspend him where he would less likely be able to win in court, it would also deflect some of the fallout from the judge's harsh words as part of the injunction and present the perception of a pattern of violence against women by Elliott, that most of the media would love to focus on.

The NFL just has to decide if they want to move on from this or let it linger all season while it is discussed over and over, especially every Cowboys game. It comes down to how bad their desire to "win" now is versus what's best for the NFL long term.

I don't think they can do anything about the shirt pulling incident. They already formally informed him there would be no punishment for that. I believe if they tried to change the punishment, that brings up the "Ray Rice Rule" whereby you can't do that.

 

[jwooten15]

Again, you are thinking "CRIME" .. the NFL does not issue player punishment based on crimes. They issue player punishment based on "conduct detrimental to the league."

Marijuana is legal is several states, yet players who get cause using it are suspended. A lot of supplements the NFL has banned are not only legal but available over the counter to everyone of all ages.

If they tried to suspend Zeke for any amount of time based on pulling a girl's top down (for which she consented to/didn't make a complaint - so it's def not assault or dv), then in all fairness, Rob Gronkowski would have to be suspended right along with Zeke - and probably suspended more games than Zeke.

"Conduct detrimental to the league" is intentionally very vague so that the league has free reign to do what they want, but this would be downright illogical to pursue. Then again, the NFL obviously isn't very "logical". Very slippery slope

 

[Nova]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. The NFL hasn't been using a lot of common sense through this whole Elliott investigation and suspension process, so I'm not ready to assume they've gained any more common sense at this point.

Ha that's true and fair.

Unlike the NFL...

Hiyooooo!

 

[Reality]

I get that you're not arguing for it. Honestly I though it was the route they should've gone in the first place.

"Zeke, you're making us look bad. Here's 2 games."

You absolutely could not question that decision. Hell, even I would accept it.

But the definiton of sexual assault revolves around consent.

And while the NFL doesn't have to abide by laws whilst disciplining their own employees, they have shown a strong pattern of needing victim cooperation to proceed with serious allegations such as DV or sexual assault.

I just think that kind of suspension would get thrown out in arbitration based on precedent; much like Greg Hardy's suspension was reduced from 10 to 4 games because that was the max DV charge that had been levied before the Ray Rice rule change.

After Harold Henderson upholding the 6-game suspension given all of the flaws in the case against Elliott, I have absolutely no faith he would rule against the NFL on anything.

 

[Philmonroe]

Again, for the countless time, you are thinking CRIME .. I'm not talking crime. I'm saying the NFL has a lot of leeway and freedom of consideration as to what constitutes "conduct detrimental to the league."

That said, grabbing your girl friend's butt, breast, etc. is a lot different than exposing her breasts, butt, etc.

Im not talking crime either. The nfl don't have leeway to switch from no punishment to punishment on something they already said it was no punishment for. Don't know where you got that from.

As far as different no its not. If I grab some random girls butt and she reports me would I get in trouble or not? If the answer is yes how different is it?

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

It isn't sexual assault unless the NFL makes it sexual assault. I wouldn't trust those scumbags with anything.

 

[Nova]

Ha that's true and fair.

Unlike the NFL...

Hiyooooo!

By the way, I used the word "ire" in a post which must means the whiskey is working.

Sorry for any dad jokes that may come here in the near future.

Damn.

Well I warned ya

 

[Bleedblue1111]

They don't need cooperation from her in this case because there is video evidence. Again, we're not talking a CRIME here .. we're talking "conduct detrimental to the league" which has a MUCH lower threshold to prove.

Now, I'm not saying the NFL would ultimately win a court battle over it, but if they were to issue a suspension for a second incident, the media would run non-stop with it and it would create the perception of a pattern of abuse/attacks against women. The NFL would put the focus back on Elliott in that situation, whether they ultimately win or lose.

Again, I'm not saying he's guilty of anything. I'm saying the NFL has options. Whether they are smart or good options is subjective in their eyes.

That should only be a 2 game suspension, max. I think they already let that ship sail though, and falsely labeled him a woman beater. Definitely understand what your saying though, "is they could."

 

[Ghost12]

The ship hasn't sailed because they never pursued it.

Yes they did. The suspension letter they wrote Elliott told him that they investigated that incident, and spoke to the woman in question.

 

[Reality]

Im not talking crime either. The nfl don't have leeway to switch from no punishment to punishment on something they already said it was no punishment for. Don't know where you got that from.

As far as different no its not. If I grab some random girls butt and she reports me would I get in trouble or not? If the answer is yes how different is it?

It's all about how the NFL views it, not you or I.

For example, let's say a player grabs a woman's butt out in public. Even if it's not a woman he knows, the NFL wouldn't likely do anything about it. However, let's say he's a chronic butt grabber and does is dozens of times over a period of time. The NFL would be more inclined to do something about that.

What everyone has to remember is what I have pointed out several times .. the basis for the NFL to act is "conduct detrimental to the league". That is a VERY subjective rule that can be applied from different angles.

For example, they could say "exposing a woman's breast in public is illegal in 3 states who consider it sexual assault so we are justified in calling it that." They could also go with a completely different angle and say, "An NFL player damaged the NFL brand by exposure a woman's breasts to children in the crowd and throughout the world who have seen the video."

As I said, there are many ways for the NFL to justify re-opening the case. I am not saying the should.

 

[Reality]

Yes they did. The suspension letter they wrote Elliott told him that they investigated that incident, and spoke to the woman in question.

Always ways to re-open a case. A closed case is not permanently closed. Look no further than Ray Rice and Josh Brown whose cases were reviewed, ruled on and closed.