The NFL has another option to get what they want

[casmith07]

They can, technically, but since they already stated that it was considered and was essentially passed over, it would crate a pseudo double jeopardy argument that they quite frankly cannot afford to face in this court.

They're out of options. I think they should just take this one on the chin and drop the suit, and move on.

I also want to add - my opinion that they should leave it alone and move on is me trying to be objective! Of course I want this to go away for my sake as a Cowboys fan, but I personally don't think that this looks good for them.

Given the judge's opinion, to me at least, it feels like the NFLPA will win the trial whenever it occurs -- this case is "egregious" and "unlike anything the court has ever seen" warranting the special exception of the court stepping in and ruling on arbitration. The court is right, too -- courts do NOT generally like to step in to govern or rule on arbitration because it can set dangerous precedent.

The NFL has no process; if it does have a process, the court has said - in only a preliminary injunction - that the process was not just unfair but seems to be wildly unfair.

My question to the NFL (and to you all): where will the NFL find an argument or evidence that is persuasive enough to show the contrary? I don't think they can, and I don't think they'll be able to find judicial error on appeal either.

And then! This!



Considering options that include federal appeals court? Why would you be considering appeals court when the matter is not yet finally settled at the trial court level?

Translation: HOW DOES YOUR PR STATEMENT GET OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM CONFUSED!?

BLISTERING INCOMPETENCE.

 

[casmith07]

minimally, Goodell has two owners who despise him in Dallas and NE - anyone else wanna jump on board?

Dan Snyder in Washington -- they took an even worse cap penalty right in the kisser for the uncapped year penalties.

Who was the driving force behind convincing Goodell to discipline Dallas and Washington? John Mara.

 

[Stash]

minimally, Goodell has two owners who despise him in Dallas and NE - anyone else wanna jump on board?

Do you think Snyder likes him after he took $36 million - or whatever it was - from Washington's salary cap as "penalty" for overspending in that 'uncalled year'?

How about Tom Benson for the 'Bountygate' thing and Goodell suspending his coach for a year?

And now this latest fiasco, where your Commissioner is accused of violating the CBA? How many owners are happy about that right now?

Goodell had one thing going for him. He fleeced the players during the last CBA negotiations. He got an incredible deal for the owners and the league. And he's been riding that wave of goodwill ever since. And it's kept him around to this point.

But I think that's been used up. And I think the owners now seenthat it was the players themselves, and not being strong enough or disciplined enough to handle a work stoppage, that gave them their convincing victory. And that shows that virtually anyone can defeat a group with such a fundamental flaw as that, and maybe Goodell wasn't such a hero after all?

Time to go.

 

[YosemiteSam]

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.

...and Zeke could just go right back to court saying they already closed the incident and only reopened it after they lost the suspension as retribution. If the NFL loses here, they would be better off to leave that option alone. A judge could take heavy handed action against the NFL if he deemed that is what they did.

 

[Zekeats]

Actually, that is sexual assault .. it could conceivably fall under "domestic violence" as well because he was in a relationship of some kind with the woman.

If it's welcomed it's not sexual assault. That girl was pulling her top down prior to waving at her own tits and pointing to Zeke to do it. And then as we all know Zeke banged her anyway.......and then again at another time.

 

[lukin2006]

The NFL could quit suspending players when no criminal charges were even filed against the Zeke. If the police could not make a case against Zeke, then as far as I'm concerned the suspension is 100% BS...

 

[CooterBrown]

It's only assault if she complains.

There is no connection between a complaint and an assault. Assault is a crime so victims don't get to choose not to complain. But, with that said, consent is a defense to assault. And if there is no bodily injury (pain) and the other person (the vidtim) was not offended, it is not assault.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Twoface, the individual to whom I replied, was replying to a post which said "So if a woman says, "I told him to hit me in the face several times", the NFL is just going to let that go?"

It is *that* level of violence which I am claiming a woman cannot consent to. The shirt pulling incident is a complete non-incident so long as the woman agrees it was a harmless gesture which, AFAIK, she does.

I replied to the original post in this thread that domestic violence and sexual assault could very well NOT be on the table if the league decides to take up that standard in regard to the shirt pulling event.

(Note the original post in this thread, which is the basis for my position, does not say one thing about anyone getting punched, much less a woman.)

Because the OP did not mention physical violence in his original post, this is the subject to which I replied.

His response to me.

So if a woman says, "I told him to hit me in the face several times", the NFL is just going to let that go?

Ray Rice's fiance (back then) supported Ray Rice completely and it had no impact on their eventual ruling even though she argued for leniency.

My response to him was simply those are apples and oranges since the original premise did not have punched in the face included. The subject matter was being changed at that point. I then reiterated my position on the shirt pulling.

This is when you copied my reply and said this.

I know (hope?) you're not being serious, but an individually cannot legally consent to being assaulted. So even if a woman gives someone permission to hit her, that guy could still be convicted if he did so.

Since I was not speaking about punching people or Ray Rice, but the shirt pulling, which is what the ORIGINAL post was about, you, as well as Reality (the OP and site owner) were not directly responding to my comments, but going down a rabbit hole that was not germane to the subject with which I have maintained throughout this conversation.

Now you call me a name and lecture me about physical violence, when that has never been the subject I am addressing. Since you seem to have less than 60 posts on this site, maybe what you need to do is learn to follow the conversation from the beginning, and then when you see one of the people engaged try to deviate and change the subject in the middle to suit his position, understand that is a straw man argument and then you can stay on topic and not look silly when you call someone a name because you didn't read every post.

Or, just stay the hell out of other people's debates.

 

[Ghost12]

I replied to the original post in this thread that domestic violence and sexual assault could very well NOT be on the table if the league decides to take up that standard in regard to the shirt pulling event.

(Note the original post in this thread, which is the basis for my position, does not say one thing about anyone getting punched, much less a woman.)

Because the OP did not mention physical violence in his original post, this is the subject to which I replied.

His response to me.



My response to him was simply those are apples and oranges since the original premise did not have punched in the face included. The subject matter was being changed at that point. I then reiterated my position on the shirt pulling.

This is when you copied my reply and said this.



Since I was not speaking about punching people or Ray Rice, but the shirt pulling, which is what the ORIGINAL post was about, you, as well as Reality (the OP and site owner) were not directly responding to my comments, but going down a rabbit hole that was not germane to the subject with which I have maintained throughout this conversation.

Now you call me a name and lecture me about physical violence, when that has never been the subject I am addressing. Since you seem to have less than 60 posts on this site, maybe what you need to do is learn to follow the conversation from the beginning, and then when you see one of the people engaged try to deviate and change the subject in the middle to suit his position, understand that is a straw man argument and then you can stay on topic and not look silly when you call someone a name because you didn't read every post.

Or, just stay the hell out of other people's debates.

OK, first of all, "Twoface" was an honest mistake. I apologize for that. When you wrote I called you a name, I honestly didn't even know what you were talking about so I reread my post. That was just carelessness on my part, it was not intentional, and it was not meant to be a slur. My apologies.

As for the rest, there are about 100 threads, conversations, sub-conversations, points, tangential points, theory and arguments taking place in this forum. If I got my lines crossed between reading, following, and responding to them, well I'm guilty as charged.

 

[TwoDeep3]

OK, first of all, "Twoface" was an honest mistake. I apologize for that. When you wrote I called you a name, I honestly didn't even know what you were talking about so I reread my post. That was just carelessness on my part, it was not intentional, and it was not meant to be a slur. My apologies.

As for the rest, there are about 100 threads, conversations, sub-conversations, points, tangential points, theory and arguments taking place in this forum. If I got my lines crossed between reading, following, and responding to them, well I'm guilty as charged.

Thank you. I will like you now.

 

[Ghost12]

Thank you. I will like you now.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

There is no connection between a complaint and an assault. Assault is a crime so victims don't get to choose not to complain. But, with that said, consent is a defense to assault. And if there is no bodily injury (pain) and the other person (the vidtim) was not offended, it is not assault.

That and its not assault anyway.

It is indecent exposure which is a misdemeanor offense.

Its almost like it is heartbreaking for those people to hear that when I tell them that.




YR

 

[Nightman]

I also want to add - my opinion that they should leave it alone and move on is me trying to be objective! Of course I want this to go away for my sake as a Cowboys fan, but I personally don't think that this looks good for them.

Given the judge's opinion, to me at least, it feels like the NFLPA will win the trial whenever it occurs -- this case is "egregious" and "unlike anything the court has ever seen" warranting the special exception of the court stepping in and ruling on arbitration. The court is right, too -- courts do NOT generally like to step in to govern or rule on arbitration because it can set dangerous precedent.

The NFL has no process; if it does have a process, the court has said - in only a preliminary injunction - that the process was not just unfair but seems to be wildly unfair.

My question to the NFL (and to you all): where will the NFL find an argument or evidence that is persuasive enough to show the contrary? I don't think they can, and I don't think they'll be able to find judicial error on appeal either.

And then! This!



Considering options that include federal appeals court? Why would you be considering appeals court when the matter is not yet finally settled at the trial court level?

Translation: HOW DOES YOUR PR STATEMENT GET OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM CONFUSED!?

BLISTERING INCOMPETENCE.

One option open to the NFL is to appeal the injunction to 5th Circuit, which is Federal

 

[CooterBrown]

One option open to the NFL is to appeal the injunction to 5th Circuit, which is Federal

They have to appeal or surrender. Only two options left for NFL.

 

[JD_KaPow]

It's only assault if she complains.

That couldn't be more incorrect.

 

[Beast_from_East]

minimally, Goodell has two owners who despise him in Dallas and NE - anyone else wanna jump on board?

You could probably add Daniel Snyder and Tom Benson to the list also. So that's 4 no votes right there.

 

[Ranching]

That couldn't be more incorrect.

Thank you, can you cure world hunger too?

 

[Montanalo]

While it is a bit of a side issue, I find it a bit curious that Roger Goodell would make a public statement regarding the Michael Bennett and the LV police situation and, yet, remain so quiet about Zeke.

Admittedly, I haven't followed the Bennett situation closely, but my cynical radar alert and general distaste for Goodell suggests his seeming support of Bennett is nothing more than an attempt to garner a few PR points.

It's still early, so I am allowed one really weird thought for the day. Now back to game-day preparations.

 

[Pokes12]

While it is a bit of a side issue, I find it a bit curious that Roger Goodell would make a public statement regarding the Michael Bennett and the LV police situation and, yet, remain so quiet about Zeke.

Admittedly, I haven't followed the Bennett situation closely, but my cynical radar alert and general distaste for Goodell suggests his seeming support of Bennett is nothing more than an attempt to garner a few PR points.

It's still early, so I am allowed one really weird thought for the day. Now back to game-day preparations.

Goodell and weird are like peanut butter and jelly, they go together perfectly. Gosh, I just dislike that man intensely. He is a Dufuss.

 

[arglebargle]

The NFL needs to be a bit careful about piling on Zeke. While suits by public figures rarely succeed, it is because they require a display of 'malice' by the perps. At a certain point, the NFL's behavior may rise to that level.