NFL Off-season 2022

[Roy H.]

6 games. 

When I saw the reports last night that the player's union wasn't going to appeal I figured it was no more than 8 games and that they knew.  Arbitrator went for 6 games.  Be interesting to see if the NFL just accepts it.  No fine, but he is barred from getting physical therapy from any source that is not the Browns.  That part is interesting.

NFL should appeal it.  Goddell makes the final call.

You can't have dozens of allegations of sexual assault have the same penalty as the minimum suspension for one allegation of domestic violence.

allegations are not convictions.  As we know every time a grand jury heard the evidence, they declined to even charge Watson.  The arbitrator heard the evidence and made that determination.  And that arbitrator is a female retired federal judge.  It isn't like she hasn't heard those type of cases before.

Allegations aren't convictions, and retired judges don't always get it right.  How much direct testimony did she even hear?

There's an appeals process in place.  The NFL should take advantage of it, and make a determination upon what it thinks is likely.

[Moranis]

6 games. 

When I saw the reports last night that the player's union wasn't going to appeal I figured it was no more than 8 games and that they knew.  Arbitrator went for 6 games.  Be interesting to see if the NFL just accepts it.  No fine, but he is barred from getting physical therapy from any source that is not the Browns.  That part is interesting.

NFL should appeal it.  Goddell makes the final call.

You can't have dozens of allegations of sexual assault have the same penalty as the minimum suspension for one allegation of domestic violence.

allegations are not convictions.  As we know every time a grand jury heard the evidence, they declined to even charge Watson.  The arbitrator heard the evidence and made that determination.  And that arbitrator is a female retired federal judge.  It isn't like she hasn't heard those type of cases before.

Allegations aren't convictions, and retired judges don't always get it right.  How much direct testimony did she even hear?

There's an appeals process in place.  The NFL should take advantage of it, and make a determination upon what it thinks is likely.

I was commenting on your statement that these allegations shouldn't hold the same weight as a domestic violence.  I just disagree with that.  If Bridges was a football player, he should absolutely be suspended longer than Watson under the current rule format. 

[Donoghus]

6 games seems light.

[Celtics2021]

The NFL has 3 days to assess whether there is enough outrage that 6 games is too low vs. it’s desire to just have the Watson story be over.  If there is sufficient blowback that six games is too little, it will appeal, and risk the story dragging on.  If the story is already buried to other sports news by Wednesday, there will be no appeal.  I must say I think the NFL is rooting for a Kevin Durant trade tomorrow.

[celticsclay]

I think it is pretty foolish to think that because criminal charges were not brought that sexual assault/crime did not occur. You have a bunch of women alone with a powerful large man. If he pushes on their head or starts grabbing their hands and pulling them towards his private areas (which is what is alleged), it’s pretty impossible to prove to a criminal level because there is going to be dna evidence or bruising,  but that doesn’t make it any less screwed up. The fact that he seemingly shows no remorse doesn’t bode well for this not happening again.

[Roy H.]

So, the arbitrator found that it is likely that intentional and unwanted sexual assault occurred against at least four women.  The arbitrator also found that Watson posed a genuine danger to the women.

That's only worth six games.  Wow.  Sexual assault and posing genuine danger to a woman is worth 1.5 games per victim.  That'll teach him.

https://www.espn.com/pdf/2022/0801/watson.pdf

The arbitrator believes that there is something called "non-violent sexual assault".  I guess I disagree with that.  She essentially argues that the players couldn't have known that "non-violent sexual assault" -- i.e., intentionally touching somebody with your naked penis without consent -- is at least as bad as violent assault.

My response:  please talk to a victim assaulted by somebody's naked penis, and ask them if they consider that violence.

I wonder, where does this arbitrator draw the line.  If it wasn't four women before forced to touch Watson's penis with their hands, but rather their lips, would that be "non-violent"?  Their vagina's?  Maybe he could touch a 12 year old with his naked penis.  "All good, it's non-violent".

The NFL should absolutely appeal, and they should fire this arbitrator off their staff in the process.

[Moranis]

Or maybe the NFL shouldn't just make up the rules after the fact and try to enforce them for retroactive conduct.  I'm actually surprised she suspended him at all given how harshly she came down on the NFL for changing the rules mid-process.

[celticsclay]

So, the arbitrator found that it is likely that intentional and unwanted sexual assault occurred against at least four women.  The arbitrator also found that Watson posed a genuine danger to the women.

That's only worth six games.  Wow.  Sexual assault and posing genuine danger to a woman is worth 1.5 games per victim.  That'll teach him.

https://www.espn.com/pdf/2022/0801/watson.pdf

The arbitrator believes that there is something called "non-violent sexual assault".  I guess I disagree with that.  She essentially argues that the players couldn't have known that "non-violent sexual assault" -- i.e., intentionally touching somebody with your naked penis without consent -- is at least as bad as violent assault.

My response:  please talk to a victim assaulted by somebody's naked penis, and ask them if they consider that violence.

I wonder, where does this arbitrator draw the line.  If it wasn't four women before forced to touch Watson's penis with their hands, but rather their lips, would that be "non-violent"?  Their vagina's?  Maybe he could touch a 12 year old with his naked penis.  "All good, it's non-violent".

The NFL should absolutely appeal, and they should fire this arbitrator off their staff in the process.

It’s absolutely insane and a slap to the face of all women fans of the nfl. Meanwhile mlb has given Bauer a two year suspension for one sexual assault case that he not convicted of (not that I want him to have less, just toothless and pathetic). You have to take a long look in the mirror if you don’t find rooting for this guy disturbing.

[celticsclay]

Or maybe the NFL shouldn't just make up the rules after the fact and try to enforce them for retroactive conduct.  I'm actually surprised she suspended him at all given how harshly she came down on the NFL for changing the rules mid-process.

Wow

[Roy H.]

Or maybe the NFL shouldn't just make up the rules after the fact and try to enforce them for retroactive conduct.  I'm actually surprised she suspended him at all given how harshly she came down on the NFL for changing the rules mid-process.

If the rules are unfair, have the balls to dismiss the case as a Due Process violation.  I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to, though.  Are players not aware that sexually assaulting four women is against the rules?  Punishing somebody for four proven sexual assaults is retroactive conduct?  I mean, that's literally the arbitrator's argument, right?  The NFL didn't specifically prohibit a player non-consensually touching his penis to another person's body in an unwanted way while asking for / demanding sex.  The NFL policy prohibits sexual assault committed via violence and sexual assault where a victim can't give consent.  But, in a situation where you simply force somebody to touch your junk and emotionally devastate them into needing therapy?  That's A-OK.  No policy against that, so the player couldn't have known it was wrong.

Don't make a *finding* that sexual assault occurred to at least four women, and then try to argue that that forcible, non-consensual sexual assault was "non-violent".  I hope you're simply being a contrarian, rather than somebody who thinks it's okay to go around intentionally sexually assaulting women.

[Moranis]

Or maybe the NFL shouldn't just make up the rules after the fact and try to enforce them for retroactive conduct.  I'm actually surprised she suspended him at all given how harshly she came down on the NFL for changing the rules mid-process.

If the rules are unfair, have the balls to dismiss the case as a Due Process violation.  I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to, though.  Are players not aware that sexually assaulting four women is against the rules?  Punishing somebody for four proven sexual assaults is retroactive conduct?  I mean, that's literally the arbitrator's argument, right?  The NFL didn't specifically prohibit a player non-consensually touching his penis to another person's body in an unwanted way while asking for / demanding sex.  The NFL policy prohibits sexual assault committed via violence and sexual assault where a victim can't give consent.  But, in a situation where you simply force somebody to touch your junk and emotionally devastate them into needing therapy?  That's A-OK.  No policy against that, so the player couldn't have known it was wrong.

Don't make a *finding* that sexual assault occurred to at least four women, and then try to argue that that forcible, non-consensual sexual assault was "non-violent".  I hope you're simply being a contrarian, rather than somebody who thinks it's okay to go around intentionally sexually assaulting women.

Her finding was based on the NFL's after the fact interpretation of the rule.  I read the 15 pages.  She basically found that under the definition they created for this situation, he was guilty of violating the rule, but wasn't going to suspend him harshly because they were trying to retroactively punish him for conduct that wasn't well defined.  As I said, I'm actually surprised she suspended given the language she used. 

I mean this is basically the conclusion of the opinion

"Here, the NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to - and consistency of consequence for - those in the NFL subject to the Policy."

She has a footnote on Policy, which states "I note in this regard that the Policy is equally applicable to players and team owners and management.  The NFLPA questions whether it is "fair and equitable" to severely punish Mr. Watson for his non-violent sexual conduct and not even charge various team owners who have been accused of similar or worse conduct."

She basically called the NFL hypocrites who only did anything at all because of public outcry.

[Moranis]

Or maybe the NFL shouldn't just make up the rules after the fact and try to enforce them for retroactive conduct.  I'm actually surprised she suspended him at all given how harshly she came down on the NFL for changing the rules mid-process.

Wow

Did you read the decision?  That is basically what it says.

[celticsclay]

Or maybe the NFL shouldn't just make up the rules after the fact and try to enforce them for retroactive conduct.  I'm actually surprised she suspended him at all given how harshly she came down on the NFL for changing the rules mid-process.

Wow

Did you read the decision?  That is basically what it says.

How is this any different from Elliot or Big Ben being suspended 6 games without being convicted of anything? (I mean aside from their being 4 instances for Watson compared to one for Big Ben).

[sgrogan]

Or maybe the NFL shouldn't just make up the rules after the fact and try to enforce them for retroactive conduct.  I'm actually surprised she suspended him at all given how harshly she came down on the NFL for changing the rules mid-process.

If the rules are unfair, have the balls to dismiss the case as a Due Process violation.  I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to, though.  Are players not aware that sexually assaulting four women is against the rules?  Punishing somebody for four proven sexual assaults is retroactive conduct?  I mean, that's literally the arbitrator's argument, right?  The NFL didn't specifically prohibit a player non-consensually touching his penis to another person's body in an unwanted way while asking for / demanding sex.  The NFL policy prohibits sexual assault committed via violence and sexual assault where a victim can't give consent.  But, in a situation where you simply force somebody to touch your junk and emotionally devastate them into needing therapy?  That's A-OK.  No policy against that, so the player couldn't have known it was wrong.

Don't make a *finding* that sexual assault occurred to at least four women, and then try to argue that that forcible, non-consensual sexual assault was "non-violent".  I hope you're simply being a contrarian, rather than somebody who thinks it's okay to go around intentionally sexually assaulting women.

Her finding was based on the NFL's after the fact interpretation of the rule.  I read the 15 pages.  She basically found that under the definition they created for this situation, he was guilty of violating the rule, but wasn't going to suspend him harshly because they were trying to retroactively punish him for conduct that wasn't well defined.  As I said, I'm actually surprised she suspended given the language she used. 

I mean this is basically the conclusion of the opinion

"Here, the NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to - and consistency of consequence for - those in the NFL subject to the Policy."

She has a footnote on Policy, which states "I note in this regard that the Policy is equally applicable to players and team owners and management.  The NFLPA questions whether it is "fair and equitable" to severely punish Mr. Watson for his non-violent sexual conduct and not even charge various team owners who have been accused of similar or worse conduct."

She basically called the NFL hypocrites who only did anything at all because of public outcry.

I give pause to the claim that because the victims were compliant the act was non-violent.
Given the footnote, I doubt the league appeals.
 

[Moranis]

Or maybe the NFL shouldn't just make up the rules after the fact and try to enforce them for retroactive conduct.  I'm actually surprised she suspended him at all given how harshly she came down on the NFL for changing the rules mid-process.

Wow

Did you read the decision?  That is basically what it says.

How is this any different from Elliot or Big Ben being suspended 6 games without being convicted of anything? (I mean aside from their being 4 instances for Watson compared to one for Big Ben).

It isn't, which is ultimately why she gave him 6 games (though I got the impression she may not have at all if the definitions were left up to her).  The NFL wanted a lot more and she came down very hard on them for that stance. 

Read the decision.  It is written in a way that a non-lawyer can probably understand it.