bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
The courts move sllloowwwww....vikings dline case....deflategate....all took years...
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
RB Ezekiel Elliott, DAL (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
shadyridr
Footballguy
Mavis
Footballguy
Yeah, what the heck, saw nothing of this, and trust me...I'm looking under every rock for news.
They didnt make this publicly loud on purpose, if it is true at all. Holy jeezus, lots of smoke to settle here to figure out wth is going on.
Last edited by a moderator:
socrates
Footballguy
Yeah it is very shady, although the link still works, so they have not yet retracted it. I think it is fake news, but I really hoped ESPN was above doing that sort of thing. They do not indicate who wrote the article (3:30 PM CT, ESPN.com news services), but they indicate that "Information from ESPN's Adam Schefter, Dan Graziano and the Associated Press was used in this report".
The General
Footballguy
It's a holiday weekend. It's probably just a poorly written article.
NJ
Footballguy
Don't know who this Daniel Wallach guy is but Chris Mortensen retweeted him saying that the hearing for the temporary restraining order was set for Tuesday at 5 PM so how is ESPN reporting the TRO has already been granted?
Chris Mortensen Retweeted
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL
BREAKING: Judge Mazzant sets hearing on Ezekiel Elliott’s TRO motion for Tuesday, September 5, 2017, at 5:00 PM
https://twitter.com/WALLACHLEGAL/status/903727554401640449
Chris Mortensen Retweeted
Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL
BREAKING: Judge Mazzant sets hearing on Ezekiel Elliott’s TRO motion for Tuesday, September 5, 2017, at 5:00 PM
https://twitter.com/WALLACHLEGAL/status/903727554401640449
Last edited by a moderator:
unckeyherb
Footballguy
There is no mention of this on the espn front page or the espn NFL front page. I call bs.
Mavis
Footballguy
I agree? Also, we would know if Henderson upheld the suspension, right?
But how is it on their website?
Ilov80s
Footballguy
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Why wouldn't roger just use the old exempt list again???
ffinmyblood
Footballguy
My motto is, citizenship before championships.
I feel guilty in a way, because if Elliot really did beat up his girlfriend, then it's not right that he should get away with no penalty.
But on the other hand, my two running backs this year are going to be Leveon Bell and Ezekiel Elliot!! With McCaffrey as my flex RBIn all the years I've been playing FF, I've never started with this much of an advantage against my opponents. Never. I took a gamble taking Elliot at 2.9 and it may be about to pay off.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Very good article. Thanks for sharing.
It's still sick that the NFL seemingly is disinterested in a) finding the truth and b) utilizing a fair and equitable process for player discipline.
Mavis
Footballguy
Not the way I go...It doesnt make anyone a worse or better citizen for rostering a player for fantasy points...
If you didnt have him, somebody else will. Have to say its odd someone would equate the two.
Last edited by a moderator:
theplayer11
Footballguy
good article, doesn't look promising for Zeke
Unfortunately for Elliott, courts usually reject TRO petitions. In law, TROs are regarded as “extraordinary” forms of relief. A petitioner for a TRO (here Elliott) must demonstrate four prerequisites: (i) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (ii) a substantial threat of immediate and irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law; (iii) that greater injury will result from denying the temporary restraining order than from its being granted; and (iv) that a temporary restraining order will not disserve the public interest.
Unfortunately for Elliott, courts usually reject TRO petitions. In law, TROs are regarded as “extraordinary” forms of relief. A petitioner for a TRO (here Elliott) must demonstrate four prerequisites: (i) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (ii) a substantial threat of immediate and irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law; (iii) that greater injury will result from denying the temporary restraining order than from its being granted; and (iv) that a temporary restraining order will not disserve the public interest.
Tanner9919
Footballguy
still FAR more valuable than guys like Crowell, Hyde, Fournette, Melvin ' 2016 was my best year ever, and yet I couldn't average more than 4 yards per carry' Gordon, and a handful of others.what you get with Zeke is the assurance that he is 122 yards per game ,every game, plus recs and TDs. period. he's a god.he's a throwback to the Emmitt Smith Larry Johnson, LT2 bell cow RB days of yore ( sorry, I've always wanted to use that word in a sentence!) ..Zeke's suspension makes him even more valuable because what you get is a fresh legged RB at week 8..so imagine, half the season is over, players are breaking down,they're tired, etc..and along comes Zeke with fresh legs..so his performance this year should outperform what he did last year on a per game basis, and by a very wide margin..
I'm all in..I have the 5th pick in a standard scoring non ppr for RB league..and I'm taking him without hesitation. guys in that area include AJ Green, Mike Evans, McCoy, Julio..
I'll take Zeke over all of them..the more RBs we see come in to this league, ala Cook, Hunt, McCaffrey,the more I want a piece of the poster child 25-30 carries/gm RB..
I'm all in..I have the 5th pick in a standard scoring non ppr for RB league..and I'm taking him without hesitation. guys in that area include AJ Green, Mike Evans, McCoy, Julio..
I'll take Zeke over all of them..the more RBs we see come in to this league, ala Cook, Hunt, McCaffrey,the more I want a piece of the poster child 25-30 carries/gm RB..
Mavis
Footballguy
I'm not sure that is a valid argument. Missing football games (especially if he can be paid the money owed at a later date) doesn't seem to be irreparable harm. If he misses 6 games, but recoups the salary he was owed, where is the irreparable harm?
Accumulating stats towards a HOF career.
Missing games played for a professional athlete is irreparable harm. That is the easy part - its the other criteria where he may have trouble.
How is it irreparable? He can play more games later. That's the way a judge could view it. That's just as likely as your interpretation, IMO.
NJ
Footballguy
How about the damage to the Cowboys having to play 6 games without their best player? It seems obvious that a lot more damage is done by not letting him play than would be done by letting him play until the case is settled. He can always serve the suspension later if he loses, you can't go back and replay games after they are done. That seems like the easy part to convince a judge, I'm not even sure why that's being debated, it would seem like the tough part will be convincing a judge he actually has a "substantial likelihood" of winning his case against the NFL. Just my opinion, but it seems like if the TRO is not granted it would be much more likely to be because a judge didn't think they had a real case against the NFL. I can't imagine a judge thinking he had a legit case but denying the TRO because he didn't think there was any damage done by forcing him to sit out the next 6 games.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
"The Cowboys" are part of the NFL and thus on the other side of the litigation. The "irreparable harm" would have to be to Elliot and the NFLPA. I do think that part could go either way since Elliot could be made whole in the eyes of the law by being repaid for the games he missed. Obviously though the TRO was granted in the Brady case - so I do agree the "likelihood of winning" is the difficult prong here.How about the damage to the Cowboys having to play 6 games without their best player? It seems obvious that a lot more damage is done by not letting him play than would be done by letting him play until the case is settled. He can always serve the suspension later if he loses, you can't go back and replay games after they are done. That seems like the easy part to convince a judge, I'm not even sure why that's being debated, it would seem like the tough part will be convincing a judge he actually has a "substantial likelihood" of winning his case against the NFL. Just my opinion, but it seems like if the TRO is not granted it would be much more likely to be because a judge didn't think they had a real case against the NFL. I can't imagine a judge thinking he had a legit case but denying the TRO because he didn't think there was any damage done by forcing him to sit out the next 6 games.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
No it's not and it was already ruled that it's not in court with Brady's case. I don't see them winning the case.
NJ
Footballguy
I'm sure there's plenty they could argue outside of just his salary though that the NFL couldn't make whole such as player development since he's not allowed to practice with the team, potential loss of endorsements, the damage to his reputation by being suspended for alleged domestic abuse, etc. Not saying it couldn't happen, I just think the huge hurdle is going to be convincing a judge he could actually win a case against the NFL so either way we're in agreement there.
Rhythmdoctor
Footballguy
Zeke just went 1.09 in a high stakes I'm doing.
NJ
Footballguy
When was it ever ruled in the Brady case that missing games wasn't enough irreparable harm to grant a TRO? I didn't think Brady ever even sought a TRO, he was suspended in May, then the appeal happened and the suspension was upheld the end of July, Brady didn't seek an injunction because both sides agreed to an expedited process and wanted a ruling one way or the other prior to Sept. 4th, 2015. After they couldn't agree on a settlement the judge then ruled in favor of Brady and he played the entire 2015 season and then the following offseason the judges decision was reversed and he served the suspension to start the following season.
"The NFLPA and Mr. Brady had intended to file a motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction," the parties wrote. "However, the parties met and conferred and have agreed that a final resolution of this matter prior to the commencement of the 2015 NFL regular season would be in everyone's best interest."
http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2015/07/tom_brady_lawsuit_nflpa_new_en.html
Also TROs were granted in the Starcaps case and they were allowed to play while the case dragged out in the courts, IIRC I think one of the guys retired before the case was settled and another one eventually lost and served the suspension but it was at least a year or two later?
Last edited by a moderator:
The suit is filed by Zeke; the harm done to the Cowboys is not relevant. I doubt a judge could use that as a basis for an injunction. Even if he/she could, the harm wouldn't be considered irreparable, IMO; there is a new season each year; IF Zekes absence were to cost the Cowboys this year, they'd get another go next year.How about the damage to the Cowboys having to play 6 games without their best player? It seems obvious that a lot more damage is done by not letting him play than would be done by letting him play until the case is settled. He can always serve the suspension later if he loses, you can't go back and replay games after they are done. That seems like the easy part to convince a judge, I'm not even sure why that's being debated, it would seem like the tough part will be convincing a judge he actually has a "substantial likelihood" of winning his case against the NFL. Just my opinion, but it seems like if the TRO is not granted it would be much more likely to be because a judge didn't think they had a real case against the NFL. I can't imagine a judge thinking he had a legit case but denying the TRO because he didn't think there was any damage done by forcing him to sit out the next 6 games.
What? How is my view of how a judge would view it any less serious than yours?
Ok. I see this is not a serious conversation. I'll see my way out.
Take our (fantasy) football perspective out of the picture. If we're talking about a steel union worker who has been suspended by his boss because they claim he violated their CBA & he's appealing. He doesn't want miss work because he is shooting for a perfect attendance award or something. Do you seriously think he'd be granted an injunction because a judge would think irreparable harm would be done? We tend to think (fantasy) football is more important than it is. IMO, I doubt a judge is likely to say "Zeke might need those 6 games of stats to make the HOF, I CAN'T allow that to happen."
The loss of endorsements would be an interesting argument. I'd think he would need to show this as a legitimate possibility, though. Loss of incentives would be another good tact; do we know if Zeke has milestone incentives in this years contract: games/snaps played, yardage totals, MVP awards, etc that he'd be unlikely to hit with 6 missed games?
The injunctions in the Starcaps DID NOT find that irreparable harm was being done to the players & was surprising to many legal experts that it was granted. I don't have the link, but google an article by Dan Fitzgerald, in Connecticut Sports Law for more detail.
Again, I don't think a court has ever deemed a suspension to be irreparable harm in this type of instance. This could be the first time, but I'd be surprised.
Mavis
Footballguy
Wait, wait, wait.... Time out.... Full Stop....
Are people debating if missing "time" is irreparable?
To the above examples, can people just pay someone to put up a new tree the same size? Who cares it was cut down, they can make up the time for the lost tree later? Can but more medicine and give it to them later, right? Who cares they needed it now, You can just spend more money and give them their crucial medicine later, no? Time is important in cases.
Can you replace time? Ask a prisoner who served 10 years for a crime he didnt commit, can he get that time back? Nope, time is irreparable.
So lets say a player, who normally can play his position to 30, has 6 weeks taken from his short career? You cant get those back and is irreparable and its not even a debate. Arguing against if this is irreparable harm here is not even a legit argument. Missing time is the #1 executor of a injunction and saying it isnt even an opinion, its lacking the correct info to even make an informed opinion.
However, it doesnt even matter if he has a legit case of winning, the standard is you must posses one of the few different variations and it is clear if he misses any games that can not be made up, its irreparable. Just as if you cut down a tree or miss giving medicine...or suspend a player from games he cant play in again.
Thats why the many players who filed an injunction, got it.
Are people debating if missing "time" is irreparable?
Or for simplification...TIME cant be replaced.
To the above examples, can people just pay someone to put up a new tree the same size? Who cares it was cut down, they can make up the time for the lost tree later? Can but more medicine and give it to them later, right? Who cares they needed it now, You can just spend more money and give them their crucial medicine later, no? Time is important in cases.
Can you replace time? Ask a prisoner who served 10 years for a crime he didnt commit, can he get that time back? Nope, time is irreparable.
So lets say a player, who normally can play his position to 30, has 6 weeks taken from his short career? You cant get those back and is irreparable and its not even a debate. Arguing against if this is irreparable harm here is not even a legit argument. Missing time is the #1 executor of a injunction and saying it isnt even an opinion, its lacking the correct info to even make an informed opinion.
However, it doesnt even matter if he has a legit case of winning, the standard is you must posses one of the few different variations and it is clear if he misses any games that can not be made up, its irreparable. Just as if you cut down a tree or miss giving medicine...or suspend a player from games he cant play in again.
Thats why the many players who filed an injunction, got it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
With all due espect I think you need to re-read the block you quoted. Zeke could be compensated with money. The other things are irreversible - there's no "real" harm to Zeke missing games. "Or" is a huge word in the law.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavis
Footballguy
With all due respect, if you miss giving someone medicine what is in between that and a ruling? Time. If you cut down a tree, whats in between the tree growing back to its full size? Time.
If you suspend Zeke and he misses 6 games but he wins his case what does he miss? Time.
Pretty clear injunctions are granted because of time sensitive info, maybe you can understand the nuance of what the quote block is saying, with all due respect. Its a pretty basic concept.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Mavis
Footballguy
No, you cant replace his stats and missed games with money. You may think so because you want to believe it, but no...sorry. No debate about it.
Mavis
Footballguy
Clearly, basically because you think money fixes everything, it doesnt fixed timed missed.
Can money fix a missed funeral? how does money fix missed games he could have played in if this isnt about the money?
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Mavis
Footballguy
I guess you can debate it, you can also debate if the sky is blue if you like, doesnt change the facts that the sky is blue and missing time is irreparable.
Also, good thing you are not Zekes lawyer...you would try to tell your client that money means more to him then time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Because it's a job. If you were suspended from work and missed one week and was later found innocent by the court - how do you think the court would compensate you for your "time".
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Well I did learn something - there is no use debating some things with some people at all.
Mavis
Footballguy
Yes, there really is no use debating if missing time is irreparable. None, time cannot be replaced.
Comparing real jobs to the NFL is the sign you have no argument or case.
Last edited by a moderator:
