Arbitrator rules McNair allowed to practice in TEN (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

Last year, after Owens' suspension, an arbitrator ruled that the Eagles were within their rights to disallow Owens from practicing at their facilities.

This year, an arbitrator rules that the Titans must allows McNair to practice at their facilities.

I understand the facts of the cases are extremely different. There is no question that Owens' removal from Philadelphia was punitive, while McNair's is based on a contract negotiation.

But this seems inconsistent. Does anyone have more details on the ruling? Am I missing a key detail from one (or both) of the cases?

 

[Futeki]

You answered your own question. One was punitive, the other was not. It is as simple as that. They have no valid reason to "punish" McNair.

 

[bostonfred]

You answered your own question. One was punitive, the other was not. It is as simple as that. They have no valid reason to "punish" McNair.

That may be. But it seems like this is a huge grey area between cutting players and suspending them, where you can simply pay the player but keep them from being a part of the team. As a player or a fan, I don't like the idea that a top player like Owens or McNair can be put on the shelf whenever the team wants to. If the precedent here is that it needs to be punitive, then the next question becomes which actions allow the team to punish the player?

Keep in mind that Owens' behavior was part of a failed (and stupid) contract renegotiation. Yes, it was bad behavior, but how bad does the behavior have to be before the team can ban the player from practicing? It appears they couldn't hold McNair out if he comes in on time, but what if a player holds out for a day? For a week? What if they make a comment the team doesn't like in the media? Or break a team rule? What's the line?

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'm not sure if there is more to it than this, but with the new CBA teams are much more limited in how they can punish players.

I'm also not certain that Owens was banned from the facilities. He was de-activated and told to stay at home, but was he actually banned from working out, etc? Or did he just choose to stay at home?

 

[Borat]

This is why we have arbiters: to decide when this action is warranted and when it is not.

 

[TheFanatic]

I'm just hoping that the Arbiter's ruling will expedite the either trading or cutting of McNair. I want this story to be over with....

 

[Rooster]

You answered your own question. One was punitive, the other was not. It is as simple as that. They have no valid reason to "punish" McNair.

I agree that one being punitive is what makes this case different in the court of public opinion, but I recall during the TO saga that the Eagles were adamant that this wasn't a punishment. The union's argument was that the CBA offered a capped amount of suspended games as punishment and that by sending TO home for the season that they were punishing him more than the CBA allowed. I know the union was on a mission to get that changed, maybe the CBA has wording to prevent that now?

 

[Big Score]

The difference between the two, is that TO contiued a practice of multiple infractions for which on each occurence, Philly generated a warning letter spelling out the escalating negative consequences, until ultimately, TO was dismissed from the team.

McNair did nothing, except try to honor his contract.

However, what happened with TO, cannot happen again with the new CBA terms.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

From the TO ruling:

The Association concedes the coach has the final say as to who actually plays the game, at least on a week-to-week basis. It claims, however, that this same discretion cannot extend to questions of who practices and otherwise participates off-field. The coach may bench the player, says the Association, but he can't send him home. The "practice/play" distinction, if there be one, is particularly important in this case where, uniquely, the Player's on-field performance has been superb, and is not at issue. The Club's concern is focused, instead, on his articulated intent to engender disruption and dissent off the field. May a coach consider these factors in deciding how to form and field a team? The answer must be "yes". . . .

This case, then, is about the challenge faced by this team, dealing with this player in these particular circumstances. Mr. Owens and his agent threatened a campaign of disruption and implemented it through repeated acts, large and small, of disrespect, dissent and insubordination, culminating with a well-publicized verbal assault on the team and on the quarterback. The Coach could properly conclude that, however excellent Owens' performance was on the field, his off-field conduct and demeanor were seriously devitalizing the organization. Moreover, and this is important, there was ample reason for the Coach to conclude, in November, that the problem was by no means resolved. At the moment of his being warned of the impending discipline, Mr. Owens was, after all, willing to "sit" rather than attempt to work things out with the team. Indeed, even at the arbitration hearing, the Player made it abundantly clear that his contract issue -- the one that inspired his marked change in attitude during the current season- - was still alive. And, he made it clear, as well, that his view of his obligations to co-exist as a teammate had not changed: In his view, for example, speaking to his quarterback was still not necessary.

The Eagles were keeping Owens away because he was likely to continue to disrupt their practices.McNair, on the other hand, has not violated his contract. And the Titans' stated reason for wanting to keep him away is not that he's going to disrupt things by behaving poorly, but that they don't want to be on the hook for his salary if he gets injured. Well, if they don't want to be on the hook for his salary, they can release him.

 

[David Yudkin]

In short as I see it, Owens' banning was part of a diciplinary action. McNair's was not. As far as I know, a team cannot seek to suspend a player or nvoke sanctions based on stalled contract negotiations. These cases are really apples and Owengses. (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Ron_Mexico]

....punitive damages over heeee.

You didn't have to be so hurtful with me.

I will probably sue you and the people you represent.

Jerky Boys 1993.

 

[BlueOnion]

Last year, after Owens' suspension, an arbitrator ruled that the Eagles were within their rights to disallow Owens from practicing at their facilities.

This year, an arbitrator rules that the Titans must allows McNair to practice at their facilities.

I understand the facts of the cases are extremely different. There is no question that Owens' removal from Philadelphia was punitive, while McNair's is based on a contract negotiation.

But this seems inconsistent. Does anyone have more details on the ruling? Am I missing a key detail from one (or both) of the cases?

In short, the Eagles built their case around the grounds that T.O.'s presence was detrimental to the team. The Titans built their case around the grounds that they didn't want to incure any risks associated with McNair working out in Tennessee.

 

[Homey]

Last year, after Owens' suspension, an arbitrator ruled that the Eagles were within their rights to disallow Owens from practicing at their facilities.

This year, an arbitrator rules that the Titans must allows McNair to practice at their facilities.

I understand the facts of the cases are extremely different. There is no question that Owens' removal from Philadelphia was punitive, while McNair's is based on a contract negotiation.

But this seems inconsistent. Does anyone have more details on the ruling? Am I missing a key detail from one (or both) of the cases?

Based on the new CBA, last year's Owens ruling no longer carries any precedential value. Also, as pointed out by others, McNair's situation was a pure contractual issue and it is pretty clear, IMO, that if a team can fine a player for NOT working out while under contract, that same team should not be allowed to actively prevent a player from working out at their facility.

 

[Ozymandias]

To put it in a nutshell, Owens is a turd, and McNair is not.

Justice was served, in each case.

 

[bostonfred]

From the TO ruling:

The Association concedes the coach has the final say as to who actually plays the game, at least on a week-to-week basis. It claims, however, that this same discretion cannot extend to questions of who practices and otherwise participates off-field. The coach may bench the player, says the Association, but he can't send him home. The "practice/play" distinction, if there be one, is particularly important in this case where, uniquely, the Player's on-field performance has been superb, and is not at issue. The Club's concern is focused, instead, on his articulated intent to engender disruption and dissent off the field. May a coach consider these factors in deciding how to form and field a team? The answer must be "yes". . . .

This case, then, is about the challenge faced by this team, dealing with this player in these particular circumstances. Mr. Owens and his agent threatened a campaign of disruption and implemented it through repeated acts, large and small, of disrespect, dissent and insubordination, culminating with a well-publicized verbal assault on the team and on the quarterback. The Coach could properly conclude that, however excellent Owens' performance was on the field, his off-field conduct and demeanor were seriously devitalizing the organization. Moreover, and this is important, there was ample reason for the Coach to conclude, in November, that the problem was by no means resolved. At the moment of his being warned of the impending discipline, Mr. Owens was, after all, willing to "sit" rather than attempt to work things out with the team. Indeed, even at the arbitration hearing, the Player made it abundantly clear that his contract issue -- the one that inspired his marked change in attitude during the current season- - was still alive. And, he made it clear, as well, that his view of his obligations to co-exist as a teammate had not changed: In his view, for example, speaking to his quarterback was still not necessary.

The Eagles were keeping Owens away because he was likely to continue to disrupt their practices.McNair, on the other hand, has not violated his contract. And the Titans' stated reason for wanting to keep him away is not that he's going to disrupt things by behaving poorly, but that they don't want to be on the hook for his salary if he gets injured. Well, if they don't want to be on the hook for his salary, they can release him.

So the original arbiter said that a coach may consider "these factors" when deciding how to "form and field a team". What are "these factors"? Could they take a McNair quote from the media and say he was being disruptive? What's the line?

And what does it mean to form and field a team? The Eagles clearly had no intent to field a team with Owens on it - they stated that in advance, and went through with it. The Titans clearly don't want to field a team with an unsigned McNair on it. They're stating that in advance, too. What line is it that allows the Eagles to say that Owens would be a distraction, but does not allow the Titans to say that McNair would be a distraction?

Before someone comes back and says, well, one was punitive, and the other was a contract negotiation, I understand that. I'm not looking for how two examples have been ruled. I'm looking for the rule itself, which should be independent of the examples.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So the original arbiter said that a coach may consider "these factors" when deciding how to "form and field a team".

What are "these factors"? Could they take a McNair quote from the media and say he was being disruptive? What's the line?

They can say whatever they want, but it'd be an obvious pretext.

And what does it mean to form and field a team? The Eagles clearly had no intent to field a team with Owens on it - they stated that in advance, and went through with it. The Titans clearly don't want to field a team with an unsigned McNair on it. They're stating that in advance, too. What line is it that allows the Eagles to say that Owens would be a distraction, but does not allow the Titans to say that McNair would be a distraction?

McNair hasn't been disruptive. He hasn't behaved poorly. He hasn't breached his contract.

Before someone comes back and says, well, one was punitive, and the other was a contract negotiation, I understand that.

The Eagles keeping Owens away wasn't punitive. If it had been punitive, the arbitrator would have ruled against the Eagles. The allowable punishment was a four-week suspension. Anything above that, as a punitive measure, would have violated the collective bargaining agreement.But the Eagles were keeping Owens away without regard to whether it punished him. (And I don't see how it would have punished him. As long as he's getting paid, wouldn't he prefer to skip practice and work out on his own? That's what he does in the offseason, anyway.) They were keeping him away because they thought it gave them a better chance of winning, given that he'd shown a pattern of insubordination.

McNair has shown no such pattern, so it would be bad faith for the Titans to prevent him from working out with the team while he's under contract and behaving like a good citizen.

BlueOnion and Ozymandias both summed it up well.