Old article on "shall"
 

Link below... hear me out...

Evidence not presented 3 calendar..... shall preclude the introduction...


Shall meaning that a court COULD decide to throw out the suspensions based on evidence not being presented according to the agreement in the CBA. They relied on the evidence and other words and opinions not even formed through the research and collecting of the evidence.

I don't want them to throw out the suspensions.

IS IT JUST ME, or would you like to see them actually play the tape out? I want them to have to show evidence. Call witnesses. Prove that Goodell was out to harm, rather than get our players back (two of which aren't even ours) and we'd still be without Payton.

I want Payton back. The only way to get Payton back is to prove the allegations are garbage. Throwing out suspensions wouldn't do a damn thing. Goodell will still win and i hate to say it, but they Saints might even feel like they won too. But maybe, the coaches will finally have to speak out because the players appeals didn't turn out the way they wanted.

If I got screwed like this, I'd seriously consider coaching in college. They make $5m a year and they are treated like gods. Not indentured servants.

Rant over.

So in this article, the following is included:

"As Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement goes, there aren’t many technicalities in the appeal process. Here’s one of them, from Article 46, Section (f)(ii): “In appeals under Section 1(a), the parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits upon which they intend to rely no later than three (3) calendar days prior to the hearing. Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.”

Key language: Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.

Key word: Shall.

As every law student learns when studying “civil procedure” (i.e., the rules for litigating cases), the word “shall” always should (or, I suppose, “shall”) be regarded as a red flag. It conveys a mandatory requirement. No discretion. No exceptions. No wiggle room."


Timing of exhibit disclosure could scuttle bounty suspensions | ProFootballTalk

At this point I want to see Roger take a dive. Everything else is gravy.

Interesting... Would involve a chain of micro decisions..

1. Three days would have to be defined as 72 hours. It says three days, which to me means three calendar days. Why not just interpret three days as three work days?

2. This was an appeal, not an initial hearing. So by default if 72 hours is the ruling does this mean any findings in the hearing is thrown out? Arguing this was an illegal hearing does not necessarily mean that the suspensions will be thrown out.. It could mean that the ruling defaults to its original as if an appeal was never heard, and a new appeal is scheduled..

3. The appeal was paused to allow the 72 hours to pass... Not sure how a judge would rule on 3.5 hours...

Which would mean that its just a lather, rinse, repeat of the original but the evidence would be handed over 72 hours prior.


This all being Florio's interpretation...


Now the correct proceeding would have been for the person hearing the appeal to say all of the NFL's evidence is not admissible... Lets proceed. Thus ending in an overturned verdict. <----- That may just do Goodell in, as he miss handled the appeals process.

"This isn't Vietnam, there are rules!!".

You're right! It's the NFL....where only the players have to abide by the rules.:brood:

Valuable lesson.... Be damned careful what you agree to in writing, or what you allow others to agree to on your behalf in writing.

Many people in history have lost their azzes in the "shell game" by only focusing on the pea.