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, NE (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
joey
Footballguy
Do NFL playoff games count toward suspension? If so, best case for Zeke owners is his suspension starts week 17 (1), then they play wild card week and win (2), divisional playoff round and win (3), NFC championship game and win (4) and super bowl (5). Then he just misses week 1 of the 2018 season. A boy can dream 
They don't, but a suspended player is not eligible to participate in the playoffs.Do NFL playoff games count toward suspension? If so, best case for Zeke owners is his suspension starts week 17 (1), then they play wild card week and win (2), divisional playoff round and win (3), NFC championship game and win (4) and super bowl (5). Then he just misses week 1 of the 2018 season. A boy can dream
joey
Footballguy
The 5th Circuit vacated Mazzant's injunction, pretty sure he can't drag his feet...sounds like this judge is just butthurt for being smacked down.
"In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the preliminary injunction on Elliott’s suspension and remanded the case back to district court with instructions to dismiss the case."
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/10/12/appeals-court-vacates-ezekiel-elliott-injunction/
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
So, how does a judge refuse to lift an injunction that the appellate court above him/her has already vacated?
ourmanflint
Footballguy
She is his accuser and the main witness. There is no case unless she accuses him of abuse. She is clearly the main witness.Bayhawks said:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I was trying to say this further up. The 5th circuit ruling from a couple days ago isn't *it. Even if the case was not appealed it would have to be remanded back to the district court and then the judge would dismiss it. However here that didn't even happen because EE kept it in the 5th circuit. And even once the 5th circuit rules against EE, which it will likely do, after that happens then it will go back down to Mazzant and then he will have to dismiss it. SDNY has the case separately but it may still await to hear from the 5th Circuit and Mazzant to ensure it is not stepping over them, which it has also refused to do up until now.davearm said:So, how does a judge refuse to lift an injunction that the appellate court above him/her has already vacated?
Last edited by a moderator:
The NFL isn't a criminal court. The NFL said his suspension isn't based on her testimony, so she's NOT the main witness. Like I said, it's BS and semantics, but it's BS that, from a procedural perspective, makes what you are saying wrong. I presume that's why the NFL worded the letter the way they did. The NFLPA's argument that they didn't have access to her testimony or her interview isn't necessary because Goodell didn't base the suspension on it. You can keep saying otherwise, but you're wrong.
If I get a work suspending me from work for regularly being late, I can't sue that I was improperly suspended for a different reason, even if I KNOW that is the real reason. If they say they're suspending for being late, and they have evidence of that lateness, THAT is what I'd have to fight. The NFL said they're suspending Zeke b/c of the photos, medical testimony, & other evidence, NOT Thompson's testimony. The NFL (& you) are arguing against a straw man, even if they, & you, & I, know it's the real reason; technically it's not. And that technicality means she IS NOT the main witness.
Mazzant has no choice but to dismiss, but he has some choice about when to dismiss. Because Zeke filed for the en banc, Mazzant can wait till that's resolved. If it takes 6 weeks (like with Brady), the suspension is off for that 6 weeks. When the 5th denies the en banc (which is most likely), he will have to dismiss. I don't know if he has a specific window in which he has to do so, however.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Agree. That said, any reasonable person (or judge) would probably see through that nonsense to say "if you don't have a person/witness to tie those other things together, that other evidence doesn't present a picture of who/what/where without Thompson at least connecting some dots."
But who knows. Lots of judges (like people in general) are narrow, lazy and don't like to connect dots. Just like voters.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
This is really well stated Bayhawks. Thanks for all of your comments in here. Your explanations are clear and concise. Appreciate your comments throughout the thread.
The issue is that law is not always about right and wrong, but what can be proven in some cases, and technicalities in others. I believe Zeke is gonna get screwed b/c the NFL won’t let themselves lose any of their CBA bargained for power. I don’t think they “hate” Zeke, just as I didn’t think they hated Brady. But they are going to fight tooth and nail to keep every ounce of that power the CBA gave them. So they worded the letter in such a way that it gives them a solid argument in court (especially SDNY & the 2nd circuit), based on the ruling in Brady, then they filed t have their decision affirmed (in SDNY) as soon as the decision was made, because they want to ensure the courts will allow them to maintain Goodell’ virtual absolute power.
Youre right that a rational person can see through it, but sometimes the law over-rules rational thought.
I agree with everything you said, but the simpler explanation is that the courts have no authority (nor are they being asked) to assess the merits of the case.
It doesn't matter how or why Goodell connected the dots... Only that he followed proper procedure as specified in the CBA.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Very true. And a great example of how idiotic the union was to let the CBA be written that way. Demaurice Smith is incompetent.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
IIRC the NFLPA got something they wanted out of the NFL for conceding that. I can' remember what but I'm pretty sure it had to do with $$$.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
When you are negotiating you ever know what you are actually getting for a concession versus what the other side literally didn't care about.
Goodell obviously cared about this piece a whole helluva lot.
I think it'd be more accurate to say Smith and the union a) lacked leverage, and b) had other higher priorities. At the end of the day, the discipline procedures impact a handful of players a year. Most other things up for negotiation impact all players.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Offer one - 2000 players have to do two practices a day in 100 degree weather but Zele gets to hit women
offer two - 2000 players get to sit in AC rooms playing video games rather than sweating their balls off and Zele misses a few games
smith did just fine
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Goodell can do anything he wants to any player now, for whatever reason he chooses. The players get that now after watching him shaft Brady and now railroad Zeke.
Very comfortable disagreeing with you on this. Also respect your view.
Tau837
Footballguy
This. I don't think this issue says anything about Smith's competence one way or the other.
rugcleaner
Footballguy
If you don't see the problems with Mckinnon you are a guppy. I am not saying that this was necessarily the right move, time will tell, but it's alot closer than you think.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see it on his twitter?
I did see this article:
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/cowboys-reportedly-want-to-lean-on-darren-mcfadden-during-ezekiel-elliott-ban/
In the article, Schefter says:
He "thinks" the "feeling" is DMC will be leaned on. No source, anonymous or otherwise, just his hunch. What's more, he goes on to say:
So, he thinks they'll lean on DMC AND Morris. Nit sure how much clarity that offers.
Hankmoody
Footballguy
The difference is that there's no predictability about it now. That's a lot easier to say about the drug policy, because Brady and 99.7% of the league are literally at zero risk of falling afoul of the Substance Abuse policy. But that 99.7% IS at risk with Goodell's ultimate discretion.
Confused. I thought with the news over the weekend Zeke was ok to start in week 7 and this thing was still hung up.
NFL spokesperson Joe Lockhart said Ezekiel Elliott's suspension is "in place."
"Anyone who tells you otherwise is not accurate," Lockhart added. There have been several conflicting readings of the various court decisions regarding Elliott in the last week, but the NFL is clear on their position. Ultimately it probably will not matter as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to decide on Zeke's request for a full panel rehearing early this week. This saga still has a ways to go.
Source: Lindsay Jones on Twitter
NFL spokesperson Joe Lockhart said Ezekiel Elliott's suspension is "in place."
"Anyone who tells you otherwise is not accurate," Lockhart added. There have been several conflicting readings of the various court decisions regarding Elliott in the last week, but the NFL is clear on their position. Ultimately it probably will not matter as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to decide on Zeke's request for a full panel rehearing early this week. This saga still has a ways to go.
Source: Lindsay Jones on Twitter
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Two things to wait for this week:
- The 5th Circuit considering the application for en banc rehearing (unlikely).
- A hearing in the SDNY, I'm not sure if that's an application by the NFL to push through their original demand to recognize the suspension or EE's request for an injunction, or both.
Without something happening in those 2 venues I don't think Zeke is playing.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheFatKid
Footballguy
Maybe I am getting ahead of things, if anything develops late week and he is allowed to play, how much do you temper expectations against the 49ers? He is not practicing or at team meetings this week per my understanding.
The league is going to enforce the suspension, from what I can gather. Mazzant has not lifted the TRO, but once the 5th rules on the en banc appeal, he will have to. If the NFL decides to enforce the suspension before Mazzant lifts the TRO, Zeke/the NFLPA could take that to court; I'm not sure if the NFL will do that, or whether the NFLPA would pursue that ( as the en banc is likely to be denied). The NFL could fine the Cowboys if they allow Zeke into their facility, at meetings, etc. Right now, it's all posturing.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think the 5th vacated the order. All that is left for Mazzant to do is dismiss the case. As I understand it he or the 5th could stay the 5th's order, ie recall the instruction to dismiss pending the request for rehearing, but he & the 5th have not done that yet and likely won't considering the low chance of success. Sorry I know this stuff is technical but I think the point is that as of right now the original injunction order is vacated.
Right, but I think Mazzant has said he won't officially rescind his order until the 5th has finished with the case (ruled on the en banc request).
The NFL could ignore Mazzant, the legal argument being that he has been over-ruled, his is just dragging his feet. If the Cowboys allow Zeke to go to work, practice, attend meetings, etc, they'd be fined (I would guess there would be a much stiffer punishment than that, though). Obviously if they try to enforce a suspension that the NFLPA feels isn't allowed, b/c Mazzant didn't lift his TRO, they could take that issue to court. I'm not sure the Cowboys would let him come in though, because they don't have much legal recourse. The NFL is their "boss," and I don't know how much legal protection they receive under Mazzant refusing to rescind his TRO yet.
ourmanflint
Footballguy
Player Conduct Policy says that if a player is not convicted of the action in a court of law, then the suspension must be based on "credible evidence". What's the credible evidence in this case? Her pictures? Her testimony? Her phone records? She's the only eyewitness. They can't dance around the fact that the only evidence to base their decision on came from her. Medical exams only show her injuries came from violence. Or did they find an imprint of Zeke's class ring? No they didn't. So who told them that Zeke did it? A little birdie? Is a little birdie "credible evidence"?
ourmanflint
Footballguy
I don't entirely agree with that. He still has to adhere to the PCP and the "credible evidence" clause. The courts are still there to enforce "fundamental fairness" in labor arbitration. Very few players have to deal with suspensions based on conduct but Goodell still serves the owners and is still subject to the court of public opinion.
The photos taken when she reported the abuse; medical testimony from people who examined her & the photos, interviews with others, etc. It’s stated in the letter.
Look, you & I both know why he was suspended, as does the NFLPA. But knowing it & proving it are two different things. And Goodell doesn’t have to prove it. The CBA makes him the sole arbiter of what evidence to consider credible & what evidence to ignore. He clearly stated, in the suspension letter, that her testimony was not what the suspension is based on, he ignored the suggestion of her interviewer to not suspend Zeke, and he considered the photos, medical testimony, etc to the “more credible” evidence. He has that right, as spelled out in the CBA, and affirmed by the 2nd circuit court. You acknowledge that the photos show abuse, and Goodell said that based on those photos, medical evidence, & other testimony, he believed Zeke had abused her. Maybe he interviewed friends, acquaintances, etc who said they’d seen Zeke be mean to her, I don’t know. Stuff that wouldn’t stand up in a court of law, but this isn’t a court of law. HE gets to determine what evidence is credible, because the CBA gives him that power.
You, I, Zeke, & the NFLPA know it’s bull, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s bull that will very likely pass the legal requirement. The only real question is whether Zeke is able to appeal, stall, etc long enough to serve the suspension next year, as opposed to this year.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a bit dramatic. You make it sound like Goodell wants to suspend as many NFL stars as possible.
A player has to do something wrong to end up in Goddell's cross-hairs. 99.x% of players will not have to worry about it, so it's not a huge priority in CBA negotiations.
ourmanflint
Footballguy
CA5 did not address anything but the jurisdiction issue. The only judge that addressed the merits of the case sided with Zeke and stated he was treated unfairly. Along with Mazzant that's 2 judges who have sided with Zeke on the idea of fundamental unfairness. Zero judges have ruled against Zeke on the merits of his case.
Fundamental unfairness of the process. No judges have weighed in on the merits of the case for either side, nor will any.
ourmanflint
Footballguy
Zeke's case is all about "fundamental fairness". That's how he did and will still get a TRO. Everyone knows we're not talking about the actual DV case here.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
The woman Goodell put in charge of the investigation decided there wasn't enough "credible evidence" to warrant a suspension, Goodell didn't care apparently
ourmanflint
Footballguy
There you go with CA2 again. They haven't been involved in Zeke's case and I've clearly stated why Zeke's and Brady's cases are different. Also, I don't believe there's any way CA2 gets involved this season other than, as you state, to guide SDNY. But again, the cases are different and there are 2 judges who have already ruled in Zeke's favor on the merits and not jurisdiction.
That's what I inferred from "merits of his case".
I feel pretty confident that he's not going to find a judge that will overturn the suspension.
ourmanflint
Footballguy
Exactly. So where does the credible evidence come from? Eventually it all comes down to his accuser. Who's that? Foghorn Leghorn?
ourmanflint
Footballguy
He can worry about that later. He's only trying to get his TRO reinstated or go for another one in New York. He only has to show reasonable chance of succeeding which he can.
The en banc hearing is a hail mary that will almost certainly fall incomplete.
New York precedent is pretty clearly established.
This is a question of when, not if Elliott runs out of legal maneuvers.
Meanwhile the NFL considers him suspended as of now.
Last edited by a moderator:
beerbuff
Footballguy
I don't think he can show a reasonable chance of succeeding. Goodell has the power to do whatever he wants.
And I’ve clearly stated how they are similar. They deal with the same subject: the power of the commissioner as bargained for on the CBA. It’s why Zeke will ultimately serve his 6 game suspension, either this year or next.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Where did I "make it sound like Goodell wants to suspend as many players as possible?" That is something you've incorrectly inferred. It isn't about the number of people he will suspend - it's about the arbitrary process by which he will make his determinations.
