What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Saints players just set FREE (1 Viewer)

For now. Doesn't the appeal mean any discipline needs to come from another guy, not Goodell?

 
Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter

With Saints winning appeal, suspensions are voided as Roger Goodell doesn't have jurisdiction and Stephen Burbank does.

 
Peter King ‏@SI_PeterKing

Suspension ramifications: Will Smith could play v RG3 Sunday, which would be big ... Payton, Loomis, not covered by this. No Coach/GM Union.

 
Gabe Feldman ‏@SportsLawGuy

Commish only has jurisdiction to punish for the "intent to injure" part of the misconduct so must reconsider case.

Gabe Feldman ‏@SportsLawGuy

Bounty-4 aren't out of woods yet. Commish still has another chance to impose discipline, though case is certainly ripe for settlement now.

 
Explain to a non-lawyer how a judge can overturn what was collectively bargained between the players union and the NFL?

This seems destined for another appeal (now by the league) and nobody will end up playing/getting paid/etc just yet. :unsure:

 
Media still getting details. But from Brandt and Breer especially on twitter, it sounds like the issue is being sent back to Goodell, who would have the ability to punish for intent to injure. Other aspects for which the players could be punished would be sent to Stephen Burbank to render any punishment if he felt warranted.

Still not clear that's 100% right though, but sounds like that's the gist being reported so far.

 
Per Rotoworld...

After having his one-year suspension overturned, Mike Triplett of the New Orleans Times-Picayune expects Jonathan Vilma to be placed on the reserve/PUP list, costing him the first six games.

While it's good news for Vilma that he can resume collecting game checks, there's still no guarantee he'll help the Saints this year. Vilma has undergone three surgeries on his left knee since last November. The 30-year-old didn't participate in any practices or preseason games with the Saints this summer and fall.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
'Hipple said:
'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
'biggamer3 said:
Peter King ‏@SI_PeterKingSuspension ramifications: Will Smith could play v RG3 Sunday, which would be big ... Payton, Loomis, not covered by this. No Coach/GM Union.
Click to expand...
I bet it wouldn't be long before they try as well...right?
Click to expand...
They aren't allowed to under their contracts.
Click to expand...
They aren't allowed to appeal?
Click to expand...
I don't remember why, but recall Clayton say in this a while back iirc.
 
Not too surprising. From the very beginning the judge said she was looking for a way she could rule against the league, she just needed to find the legal backing to do so. With a bias like that, it wasn't a question of IF she could find a reason, just of how solid/shaky the reasoning would be.

 
'GroveDiesel said:
Not too surprising. From the very beginning the judge said she was looking for a way she could rule against the league, she just needed to find the legal backing to do so. With a bias like that, it wasn't a question of IF she could find a reason, just of how solid/shaky the reasoning would be.
Click to expand...
Except that it wasn't a judge who did this, but rather a three-member arbitration panel that the judge said needed to rule before she felt comfortable doing anything, this post is spot on.
 
'trader jake said:
Explain to a non-lawyer how a judge can overturn what was collectively bargained between the players union and the NFL?This seems destined for another appeal (now by the league) and nobody will end up playing/getting paid/etc just yet. :unsure:
Click to expand...
This was not a court. This overturn was all via method of the CBA. Goodell made the punishment, heard the appeal. Players appealed that Goodell wasn't the right person to hear the appeal on the basis it was a contract violation issue, not a conduct issue. Arbitrator (first level of appeal in the CBA) agreed with Goodell. 3 person panel (2nd level of appeal in the CBA) sent it back to Goodell where he'll have to show the players had intent to injure. If so, he'd still be the one to handle the appeal. If not, I guess it would go to Stephen Burbank to hear the appeal.The thing with the court in Louisiana isn't part of this breaking news really.
 
Ok so recap, my paraphrasing:

What did NOT happen?

No ruling was made whether the Saints were guilty. No ruling was made whether the NFL was right to suspend them. No ruling was made whether the evidence was enough for the punishment. The judge did not rule on the defamation lawsuit. This was not the judge, it was a different CBA-appointed appeals panel.

What did happen?

A 3 member panel who are the final level of appeal via the CBA gave a ruling. They did not agree with the NFL nor with the NFLPA, but basically called for an additional hearing by Goodell to establish details. Until that happens, the suspensions are suspended.

They said that for Goodell to be the one who does the appeal, there has to be intent to injure involved. Since that wasn't established clearly enough whether or not that was the case, they sent the matter back to Goodell. Goodell can say, "Yes the punishments were for pay-to-injure" in which case we're right back where we started, and the appeal is in Goodell's court. If he says, "No that isn't what the punishment was for", then I believe the punishment still stands, until such time as Stephen Burbank hears the appeal.

So to say that again, the appeals panel basically told Goodell, you need to make clearer exactly whether the punishment is for paying for injury, or is for cap violations.

Wait, so were the suspensions overturned?

Not really. They are delayed. Goodell has to specify clearly whether the punishment is for intent to injure, or for salary cap violations. If he says the prior, then Goodell hears the appeal and the punishments would be back on. At which point the judge would probably make a ruling. If he says the latter, there would be another appeal to Burbank.

I think. :loco:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, the ruling itself is up at NFL.com. Some excepts, exact quotes in blocks, rest paraphrased:The panel was distinguishing between conduct detrimental issues and salary cap issues. Said that everyone, including the NFLPA seemed to conceptually agree a bounty pool could give rise to both types of issues.

We think, however, that the distinction drawn by the System Arbitrator [burbank] between the funding of a pool and the receipt of (or agreement to receive) monies from the pool is not the appropriate boundary line dividing the executive jurisdictions of the Commissioner and the System Arbitrator in this case. In our view, the alleged bounty program was both an undisclosed agreement to provide compensation to players and an agreement to cause, or attempt to cause injury to opposing players. Therefore the System Arbitrator would have exclusive jurisdiction to impose penalties for the undisclosed compensation terms of the bounty program. And the Commissioner would have exclusive jurisdiction to impose penalties for the player's agreement to seek to injure opposing players.
Click to expand...
The panel then rejected an NFLPA contention that since the bounty pool was a single agreement, both the commish and arbitrator can't split and individually handle the multiple violations from it under their purview.
While we agree, then, that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to discipline the Players in this case, we are uncertain that the discipline handed down was attributable, in any part, to that aspect of the Program which lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Arbitrator.
Click to expand...
And rather than the appeals panel assume the punishment was for intent to injure which would be under the commish's purview, they:
Therefore we vacate the Player's discipline and remand the matter directly to the Commissioner for expeditious re-determination. To the extent that any portion of the discipline previously imposed was ascribed to the undisclosed compensationa spects of the program, any re-imposed discipline should be adjusted accordingly.
Click to expand...
So it sounds like the punishment could even be split. For instance if the commish says that Vilmat got 10 games for the agreement to injure players, and 6 games for running a cap-violating pool, then Goodell might hear the appeal on the 10 games and Burbank might hear an appeal on the 6 games?
 
Saints player suspensions overturned on appeal; ‘Bounty Four’ free to play this Sunday

By Doug Farrar | Shutdown Corner – 55 minutes ago

A three-member panel has overturned the suspensions handed down to four players by the NFL in the bounty case, and all four suspended players -- New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, defensive end Will Smith, Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, and at-large defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove -- are free to play this NFL season. It is a crushing defeat for the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell.

Hargrove had been released by the Green Bay Packers on August 24, but his availability could have the Packers re-thinking that decision. Vilma had been suspended for the entire 2012 season, while Fujita was hit with a three-game ban and Smith was set to be out four games.

The original appeal ruling, given by arbiter Stephen Burbank, opined that Goodell was within his authority to suspend the four players for alleged "pay-to-injure" schemes and other pay-for-performance actions. Per the panel ruling, Goodell can re-suspend the players if there is concrete evidence of a pay-to-injure scheme, but he will have to be much more proactive about actually producing evidence this time. The panel did reportedly rule that there was evidence of pay-to-injure during the 2009-2011 timeline, but what evidence that may have been is still unknown.

"Consistent with the panel's decision, Commissioner Goodell will, as directed, make an expedited determination of the discipline imposed for violating the league's pay-for-performance/bounty rule," the NFL said in a statement. "Until that determination is made, the four players are reinstated and eligible to play starting this weekend."

Adam Schefter of ESPN.com reported that while Goodell will work to rule again, he will not do so before Week 1 of the regular season.

If Goodell wanted to, he could say that all the suspensions were solely for pay-to-injure, and re-implement all of them as they were. and it's important to keep in mind that if the players are unhappy with the new suspensions, they can seek legal redress in the New Orleans court of Judge Helen G. Berrigan. Berrigan, who recently heard arguments in the NFL's appeal of Vilma's defamation suit against Goodell said that she wanted more information from the league, but that she would likely wait for the panel ruling before making a decision of her own.

The Saints are the biggest winners here, as they will get Smith back against Robert Griffin III and the Washington Redskins. Smith is the Saints' most effective pass rusher, and under new defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo, New Orleans' defense is not expected to blitz as often as they did under former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, who is serving an indefinite suspension for his part in the bounty scandal. Vilma is currently rehabbing an injured knee, and Fujita is a depth player -- albeit a valuable one -- at this point in his career.

Saints coaches and executives, including head coach Sean Payton, general manager Mickey Loomis, and assistant coach Joe Vitt, will remain suspended at this time because they were not part of the appeal filed by the players.

A very happy Vilma tweeted out the news:

"Congratulations to our players and the Saints organization. A 3 judge panel UNANIMOUSLY overturned the bounty suspensions for players," Saints quarterback Drew Brees said on Twitter.

"Glad to have my teammates Will Smith and Jon Vilma back!! Bounty suspensions were overturned!! Who Dat!!" Saints running back Pierre Thomas added on his account.

Stay tuned for much more on this breaking story as more details are released.

 
'Greg Russell said:
Ok, the ruling itself is up at NFL.com. Some excepts, exact quotes in blocks, rest paraphrased:The panel was distinguishing between conduct detrimental issues and salary cap issues. Said that everyone, including the NFLPA seemed to conceptually agree a bounty pool could give rise to both types of issues.

We think, however, that the distinction drawn by the System Arbitrator [burbank] between the funding of a pool and the receipt of (or agreement to receive) monies from the pool is not the appropriate boundary line dividing the executive jurisdictions of the Commissioner and the System Arbitrator in this case. In our view, the alleged bounty program was both an undisclosed agreement to provide compensation to players and an agreement to cause, or attempt to cause injury to opposing players. Therefore the System Arbitrator would have exclusive jurisdiction to impose penalties for the undisclosed compensation terms of the bounty program. And the Commissioner would have exclusive jurisdiction to impose penalties for the player's agreement to seek to injure opposing players.
Click to expand...
The panel then rejected an NFLPA contention that since the bounty pool was a single agreement, both the commish and arbitrator can't split and individually handle the multiple violations from it under their purview.
While we agree, then, that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to discipline the Players in this case, we are uncertain that the discipline handed down was attributable, in any part, to that aspect of the Program which lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Arbitrator.
Click to expand...
And rather than the appeals panel assume the punishment was for intent to injure which would be under the commish's purview, they:
Therefore we vacate the Player's discipline and remand the matter directly to the Commissioner for expeditious re-determination. To the extent that any portion of the discipline previously imposed was ascribed to the undisclosed compensationa spects of the program, any re-imposed discipline should be adjusted accordingly.
Click to expand...
So it sounds like the punishment could even be split. For instance if the commish says that Vilmat got 10 games for the agreement to injure players, and 6 games for running a cap-violating pool, then Goodell might hear the appeal on the 10 games and Burbank might hear an appeal on the 6 games?
Click to expand...
As an aside note that the three other players besides Vilma - including a Brown and a Packer - filed suit in USDC EDLA just a couple days ago via the NFLPA. Have to wonder if the NFLPA had caught wind of this somehow.I think Goodell is in a bit of a bind here. The onus is on him now to come up with proof of the "intent to injure" portion. The procedures and venues are totally different but the issues *do intermix: part of what the NFLPA was saying early was stating that the NFL had left its players open to possible criminal charges (though the likelihood of such being brought is practically nil) and implicitly the question has to be raised whether, even though the reverse is true, Goodell is allowed to make a finding of fact that a player committed a crime before any public authorities ever so much as level an allegation themselves. A contract is a contract is a contract but not when certain circumstances are never ever contemplated by one of the parties, here the NFLPA, that contract is vitiated.And the league now for some time, and the media, has been couching the "bounty" language as "pay-for-performance/bounty" recently.Do the Saints, organization and these four, really, really care if they are accused of paying players outside the cap system, especially considering they, the Skins and Pokes all have already been fined for just that? Comparatively speaking.... nah.But *now* Goodell has to do what Vilma demanded in his original suit: bring real proof, that is find it and present it for independent, additional review by others, that there was "intent to injure."And meanwhile the suit in NO and Judge Berrigan await: is it moot now? If Goodell actually makes an "intent to injure" finding do the players simply amend their suit and bring it to Berrigan again? This has not been going very well for Goodell. He has already been discredited once and the judge will definitely be made aware of that. If Goodell is smart he'll pack this baby up and make this as much of a 'teachable lesson' as possible for all.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R24QLILwdHEETA: Here's a link to the decision.http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2012/09/07/0ap1000000059467.pdfAnd I'm benching Griffin for Wilson this week.Also, congrats to Browns fans who also get Fujita back.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Shutout said:
'Hipple said:
So now what? These guys can't be in shape, no?
Click to expand...
I think Vilma has been absent and might need some time (plus its a nes system on D to learn) but Smith actually played in the pre-season. I would say he's good to go.
Click to expand...
Saints Rookie O-lineman: Holy cow. Mr McDougle, you were one of my favorite lineman growing up. I am so glad you came to give us a motivational speech.Vilma: Dude, I am the starting Middle Linebacker.Lineman: Oh...well, we can certainly use you to clog the middle.
 
After reading the stuff posted by Greg, I'm not sure this is nearly the win some think it is for the players. They could very easily still see their whole suspensions or partial suspensions upheld.

 
Wonder if the Packers made a mistake on releasing Hargrove in Aug. Could/would they resign him?

 
'GroveDiesel said:
After reading the stuff posted by Greg, I'm not sure this is nearly the win some think it is for the players. They could very easily still see their whole suspensions or partial suspensions upheld.
Click to expand...
I can certainly see that, but I wonder how the short-term is handled? If this is the case, do the Saints just wait it out? Remember, they have to cut players to let Vilma and Grant back, and even if they are good for this weekend, what happens if it is upheld next week and those guys are gone? I think this causes more issues for the interim Saints GM (BTW who is that??) than anyone else involved.
 
The way I understand it Goodell has to show some real evidence. As long as he has the red handed gotcha evidence then I'm sure the suspensions will be upheld. He was just holding back his hand, right?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Terpman22
Free Agent Draft Shenanigans
Replies
11
Views
483
Jppaul
J
Ministry of Pain
**Saints at Giants** (+5, 41) 1:00
Replies
24
Views
700
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
reflint
I'm Just a Bill
Replies
11
Views
313
(HULK)
(HULK)

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top