CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

Gabe Feldman tweeting this morning:

Gabe Feldman ‏@SportsLawGuy

CBA Appeals Panel issued its full opinion in the Bounty case this morning, clarifying & expanding on the reasoning from initial opinion

Panel: "Saint’s program encompassed…undisclosed compensation agreements & ... agreements to injure that may be judged conduct detrimental"

CBA Bounty Appeals Panel: "Provided commish doesn’t impose discipline for undisclosed compensation aspect of program

"Decision whether to issue conduct detrimental discipline &selection of appropriate sanction falls squarely w/in his exclusive jurisdiction"

In sum, CBA Appeals Panel clarifies/confirms that Commish has exclusive authority to punish players for "intent to injure" aspect of Bounty

Appeals panel: NFLPA's argument that plyers were punished for on-field misconduct (thus not w/in commish authority) is "not well-founded."

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

Gray told Jim Wyatt of the Tennesseean he wanted his guys to play without regards to possible fines.

“If you are worrying about that, you are not going to go out and try and blow the guy up,” Gray said. “Great football players have to put that out of their mind. You have to say, ‘This is my territory between the numbers, and if you throw the football you better bring the Gator truck.’

“And that’s how you have to play. You can’t play timid in the NFL.”

The Gator is the green tractor/cart teams use to haul off injured players.


Titans DC uses some disturbing words to motivate his players | ProFootballTalk

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

Titans are in a small market= Expect some form of official censure

All pigs are equal but Some pigs are more equal than others

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

Appeals Panel reaffirms Roger Goodell's authority to levy sanctions in New Orleans Saints bounty scandal
10/05/12 10:54AM
Subscribe to Post Flag Post
Larry Holder, The Times-Picayune

The final opinion of NFL's CBA Appeals Panel reaffirmed Commissioner Roger Goodell's authority to impose punishments on those players connected to the New Orleans Saints alleged bounty program in the panel's final decision dated on Thursday.

The three-person panel vacated the suspensions of Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma and defensive end Will Smith, along with former Saints defenders Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargrove four weeks ago. The panel stated then that Goodell didn't have the authority to punish those players for potential salary cap violations involving illegal bonuses connected to the alleged bounty program.

"Provided that the Commissioner does not impose discipline in whole or in part for the undisclosed compensation aspects of that program, the decision whether to issue 'conduct detrimental' discipline and the selection of the appropriate sanctions falls squarely within his (Goodell) exclusive jurisdiction," Richard Holwell wrote on behalf of the unanimous panel.

The opinion also stated a player's individual conduct on the field isn't directly implicated in the case, rather it's the players' participation in a program that sought to injure opposing players is why it falls into Goodell's jurisdiction whether or not any unsportsmanlike conduct actually occurred on the field.

Thursday's opinion stands pat with what the panel expressed when it originally vacated the suspensions.

"Nothing in today's decision contradicts any of the facts found in the investigation into this matter, or absolves any player of responsibility for conduct detrimental, nor does the decision in any way suggest what discipline would be appropriate for conduct that lies within the authority of the Commissioner," the panel stated four weeks ago. "Per the panel's direction, the Commissioner will promptly reconsider the matter and make a determination of the appropriate discipline consistent with the standards set forth in today's decision. All clubs will be advised when that decision is made."

Appeals Panel reaffirms Roger Goodell's authority to levy sanctions in New Orleans Saints bounty scandal - New Orleans Saints Football NFL News - NOLA.com

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

I wish they would just settle this distraction one way or the other and be done with it.

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

Check out ESPN saying the Titans DC comments are no big deal!!

Gray Wants Physical Defense - ESPN Video - ESPN

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

What a load of :bs: "He didn't know what he was saying" Paul Kurharsky is an idiot.

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

"Blow up"? Has the League notified DHLS yet?

Goodell has gotten more clarity as to what he can and can’t do.
 

As Commissioner Roger Goodell prepares to re-issue discipline against four players whose suspensions were vacated last month, the good news is that Goodell finally has gotten more clarity as to what he can and can’t do.

The bad news is that Goodell finally has gotten more clarity as to what he can and can’t do.

Four weeks ago today, an internal appeals panel created by the 2011 labor deal vacated the bounty suspensions imposed against four players because it wasn’t sufficiently clear that Commissioner Roger Goodell remained within his jurisdiction to impose discipline for conduct detrimental to the game. The summary ruling from the appeals panel promised that a full, written opinion would be generated.

The full, written opinion was issued today, and PFT has obtained a copy. While the summary ruling created the impression that the Commissioner would be able to merely re-write the suspension letters, the full-blown opinion seems to create a stiffer challenge for the league.

The appeals panel has concluded that the portion of the Saints’ pay-for-performance/bounty program “that provided for undisclosed payments to players, whether for legitimate or illegitimate plays, falls within the explicit terms of Article 14 [of the CBA] and lies within the [System Arbitrator's] exclusive jurisdiction.” In English (or something close to it), this means that, if Goodell imposes any discipline for funding the pool or receiving money from the pool, he will be acting beyond his jurisdiction to impose discipline for conduct detrimental to the game.

The line ultimately is drawn by the appeals panel “between agreeing to injure other players and the agreement to participate in an undisclosed compensation arrangement.” As a practical matter, that will be a difficult line for the Commissioner to not cross.

When removing the money from the equation, the players agreed to do what they already had an incentive to do — play the game aggressively and effectively, to the point of creating turnovers, sacks, big plays, and preventing opponents from continuing via clean, legal hits.

Is it conduct detrimental to the game to want to hit an opponent so hard (cleanly and legally) that it knocks him out of the game? Is it conduct detrimental to the game to verbalize that desire? In this case, the natural incentive to hit the opponent hard enough (cleanly and legally) to prevent him from continuing became conduct detrimental once a price tag was attached to the successful achievement of that goal.

How can the NFL separate the payment from the intent and still show conduct detrimental to the game, when the underlying conduct is part of a common incentive when playing football, whether it’s the late Al Davis imploring violence against the quarterback or Rex Ryan breaking out the “hot sauce” for something other than chicken wings?

When re-drafting the letters, it won’t be an easy exercise in verbal and mental gymnastics for the league’s lawyers, especially since the punishment initially flowed from the league’s bounty rules, which by their very nature are premised on money changing hands.

That’s especially the case as to Browns linebacker Scott Fujita and Saints defensive end Will Smith, who were suspended for funding the pool of money. While Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma could be punished for allegedly urging injury to opposing quarterbacks and free-agent defensive end Anthony Hargrove could be punished for allegedly lying to the league when the situation was first investigated in 2010, the entire situation takes on a different feel when stripping the money out of the equation, which the Commissioner must do in order to avoid having the suspensions vacated, again.

At some point, the NFL’s best course of action may be to punt.

Final bounty appeal ruling puts league in potentially delicate spot | ProFootballTalk

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

:popcorn:

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

Too much reading for me. Bottom line, does it look like penalties will be reinstated or not?

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

I'll let you know tomorrow when some one explains it to me.

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

Yes.... no..... maybe?

Re: CBA appeals panel issues opinion on bounty case
 

If everybody would just take a moment to step back and look at what is going on...they might be able to see just how ridiculous this is.

Paw: "Maw...I heard dem boys was trying to hurt one another?"

Maw: "Ya think?"

Imagine that...a guy stepping on the football field with the intention of hurting the opponent. Now that has to be unheard of.

What about boxing? Why do we accept that those guys are intentionally trying to pound the crap out of each other...like, that's the point...and we cannot accept that these guys who wear a suit of armor are going to try to hurt someone. What are the pads for...why wear a mouthpiece...why wear a helmet? The whole thing is just bizarre off the chart, IMO.

Imagine that...a guy getting paid money to hurt somebody. How much money are they paying Ray Lewis?

Quit sugar-coating the NFL...it is what it is and that is how it got so popular. QUIT KILLING A GOOD PRODUCT...PLEASE!!