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.
Is Robert Kraft going to a massage parlor that is a front for prostitution the same as hiring an amateur masseuse, inviting her to your room and forcing her to touch your naked penis against her will, to the point where she’s in fear and suffers psychological damage?
She made a finding that Watson sexually assaulted four different women, and then basically said “no biggie”.
What part of the NFL’s definition of sexual assault bothers you? The definition was unwanted physical touching of a sexual nature with Watson’s erect penis. The arbitrator found that that occurred to four different women, at least.
It didn't bother me, but it clearly bothered Judge Robinson who seemed to focus a lot on the lack of force, which is in the criminal definition of sexual assault (at least in most jurisdictions).
"There is no allegation that Mr. Watson exerted any force against any of the therapists."
Judge Robinson seemed to have issue with the fact that "the conduct of "sexual assault" is not defined in the CBA, the Policy, or the Report." She concluded that section mentioning it again "Mr. Watson engaged in sexual assault (as defined by the NFL) against the four therapists identified in the Report."
She had even stronger language in the section involving whether the conduct posed a danger to the safety or well-being of another with language like "it is the NFL's policy and it can set the rules" and that the NFL has a "broad interpretation" of the rules.
The whole tone of the decision is one that Judge Robinson feels the NFL was overstepping and creating definitions of things on the fly. Basically don't try to enforce something retroactively that you've never defined and never bargained for.
It is pretty clear Watson's conduct was detrimental to the league, which is why she went for the 6 games as that basically matched precedent for that sort of detrimental conduct.
