Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atom y humber)
    Yh but the cba means the commissioner can do this.
    To quote myself:

    A contract can't overrule the law. A CBA stating the NFL commissioner can murder players at will wouldn't hold up as a defence in court against murder, for example.
    I've seen numerous legal experts question the appeals ruling as baffling. Regardless of what's in the CBA, Supreme Court precedent states an arbitrator can not deal out their own form of industrial justice. Due process and fairness is paramount.
    That aside, there are also aspects of the CBA that Goodell blatantly did violate! For example, the commissioner cant arbitrate an appeal of his own punishment, nor can he delegate the handing out of punishments simply so he can sit as arbitrator. Interestingly in another case recently an actual independent arbitrator ruled against the NFL in the matter of delegating punishments.
    The CBA also explicitly states the punishments for equipment violations- it's like a $8k fine, not a four game ban, which Goodell ignored (which ties in to industrial justice), and of fair notice.
    I'm normally not one of these armchair internet lawyers who likes to criticise actual professional judges, but holy moly their ruling made absolutely no God-damn sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Of course a contract can't override the law, but it isn't trying to this time. A lot of the punishment that get handed down in all sports won't hold up in court law. Let's not go into estrionics and semantics.

    And I'm pretty certain that your second paragraph is wholly false. Goddell is the judge, executioner etc per cba. He can be arbiter against himself.

    Brady wasn't punished for just equipment violation.
    http://www.sbnation.com/2016/4/25/11...oodell-nfl-cba
    CBA was stupid for the players. Hopefully they've learnt thier lessons.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atom y humber)
    Of course a contract can't override the law, but it isn't trying to this time. A lot of the punishment that get handed down in all sports won't hold up in court law. Let's not go into estrionics and semantics.


    And I'm pretty certain that your second paragraph is wholly false. Goddell is the judge, executioner etc per cba. He can be arbiter against himself.

    Brady wasn't punished for just equipment violation.
    http://www.sbnation.com/2016/4/25/11...oodell-nfl-cba
    CBA was stupid for the players. Hopefully they've learnt thier lessons.
    I'm not going into estrionics and semantics, but this is an important legal case, it's certainly not 'meh' and 'whatever'.
    I've clearly explained and detailed how and why the CBA explicitly does not give the commissioner the power as judge, jury and executioner, but your argument appears to be 'it does, because.'
    You've admitted a contract can't override the law, yet you claim imply that it can. Arbitrators can not dispense industrial justice, which is what it would be if Goodell had the powers you claim he can. That's why the frickin' chief justice of the court dissented in the last appeal against the decision to re-instate Brady's ban, because the decision was implicitly giving Goodell powers that violated SUPREME COURT precedent.
    The CBA doesn't even given him those powers, that's a weird myth. There are strict procedural rules laid out by the CBA, which Goodell decided to ignore and flout. Let's not forget that Goodell has lost court appeals against his disciplinary powers in cases against Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, which contradict the notion that he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants.
    And Brady was punished for the 'deflate-gate scheme' and failing to co-operate. Neither of those charges, were they true, warrant a four game suspension as per the CBA.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    And another amicus brief has been filed to the court, this time by ten law professors, including ones from Harvard, Cornell and Berkeley.
    http://www.bplegal.com/webfiles/pdf/...mici_brief.pdf
    Extracts from the brief include:
    -An agreement to arbitrate is not a agreement to an unfair process
    -Courts must vacate arbitral awards that do not draw their essence from the CBA
    -Arbitrators are forbidden from dispensing their own brand of industrial justice
    -Commissioner Arseface's award does not constitute just cause because it fails to meet standards for industrial due process

    Literally the entire professional scientific, legal and labour rights community in America is against the NFL in this case.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Last one, honest!

    Kenneth Feinberg also filed a brief to the court
    https://cbsboston.files.wordpress.co...icus-brief.pdf
    This is important because Feinberg has for decades been a high profile arbitrator. He doesn't hold back either in his opinion of Goodall's conduct as an arbitrator.

    -To permit the enforcement of the Commissioner’s award...will fundamentally erode the public’s trust and confidence in arbitration

    -[T]he Commissioner’s decision here lacked even the basic hallmarks of due process — a fair process, before a fair tribunal. Decisions such as this have no credibility. That lack of credibility is only heightened here, where the non-neutral arbitrator’s key decisions consistently advantaged his own organization over the opposing party

    -Until now, contracting parties have been assured that the court will ensure a baseline level of process: an opportunity to present evidence to an unbiased tribunal. The panel’s decision functionally eviscerates these protections

    -Having witnessed the tremendous benefits arbitration and private dispute resolution have shown in myriad types of conflict, this would be a tremendous loss to our justice system. While arbitrators’ approaches may vary, the Commissioner’s actions were simply beyond the bounds

    -[Goodell] reshaped the parties’ bargain to favor the NFL. This violates the most basic tenet of arbitration: the arbitrator’s authority is derivative of and subordinate to the contract.

    -...This dynamic made it impossible for Brady to obtain fair process. The award sent a clear signal to the public about arbitration: procedural due process can be ignored

    -Honest mistakes (whether errors of law or fact) are not reviewable. In contrast, unfair rulings and bias are intolerable

    -The arbitrator, whose authority is derivative of the contract, cannot modify the [CBA]

    -The Commissioner used the guise of arbitration to dramatically alter many of the long-standing features of the parties’ course of dealing. Substantively, he created new violations and disciplinary powers. These were objectives for the bargaining table, not to be unilaterally imposed by a biased arbitrator in the arbitration itself

    -The notion that only one side would be entitled to the materials of the independent investigator is so egregious that it cannot be the result of good faith mistake — there is no provision in the CBA that could be construed to even contemplate this type of one-sided access. It is instead yet another clear indicia of the bias that permeated this proceeding

    -The Commissioner impermissibly exceeded the scope of his authority in this matter. But more troubling, he used the vehicle of arbitration as a mechanism to rewrite the underlying bargain between the parties, to the sole advantage of his organization as against Brady and the Players Association. If this type of bias or capricious notions of industrial justice are upheld, the public should—and will—lose faith in the systems of arbitration and private dispute resolution that have become a parallel component of our justice system.

    -Fair process before a fair tribunal cannot be an aspiration; it is an unwaivable, inviolable necessity
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    How is it a myth when it what the court concluded in March? That's what the first link I showed you says. Here's another with an excerpt.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/26...einstated.html

    "In their decision, the judges did not consider the underlying facts of the case, including the science of football deflation, but instead looked solely at whether Goodell, as arbitrator, acted in the spirit of the collective bargaining agreement.“We hold that the commissioner properly exercised this broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement and that his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness,” Judges Barrington Daniels Parker Jr. and Denny Chin wrote in their opinion. “Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to confirm the award.” " so I don't get how you can confidently claim it's a myth when a court of law says otherwise.
    If this is held up. Case closed. Though I hope it goes to Supreme Court if it is. It's s stupid deal to agree to.

    There're nuances the court that don't apply to ordinary labour. Hence why players get punished for thing that wouldn't hold ground elsewhere. All for maintaining intergrity and all that. No surprise labour organisation are supporting Brady. Id be worried if they didn't. Every sane person is on Brady's side here, even I am, but the cba allowed this and it needs to be scratched.

    Ray rice case was different. That was about double jeopardy. There's no double jeopardy in this case.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atom y humber)
    How is it a myth when it what the court concluded in March? That's what the first link I showed you says. Here's another with an excerpt.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/26...einstated.html

    "In their decision, the judges did not consider the underlying facts of the case, including the science of football deflation, but instead looked solely at whether Goodell, as arbitrator, acted in the spirit of the collective bargaining agreement.“We hold that the commissioner properly exercised this broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement and that his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness,” Judges Barrington Daniels Parker Jr. and Denny Chin wrote in their opinion. “Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to confirm the award.” " so I don't get how you can confidently claim it's a myth when a court of law says otherwise.
    If this is held up. Case closed. Though I hope it goes to Supreme Court if it is. It's s stupid deal to agree to.

    There're nuances the court that don't apply to ordinary labour. Hence why players get punished for thing that wouldn't hold ground elsewhere. All for maintaining intergrity and all that. No surprise labour organisation are supporting Brady. Id be worried if they didn't. Every sane person is on Brady's side here, even I am, but the cba allowed this and it needs to be scratched.

    Ray rice case was different. That was about double jeopardy. There's no double jeopardy in this case.
    There's a huge difference between what the court verdict said- that Goodell's conduct was not in bad faith and so did not violate either the CBA or rule of shop, and what you are implying- that the CBA explicitly allowed Goodell to act in bad faith.
    Regardless, the whole point is that the 2nd circuit got it wrong. This is the overwhelming view of the legal community. I've not seen or heard one legal expert advocate for the NFL or against Brady in this matter. You can't then cite the 2nd circuit as evidence that the 2nd circuit was right.

    There's no special case or rules for sportsmen. The NFL's CBA is just like any other. And again, it doesn't matter what is in the CBA, it must still follow the law. A fair punishment for terms laid out by the CBA, with a fair and impartial appeals process is completely reasonable. No where however in the CBA does it say the appeals arbitrator can escalate proceedings to find players guilty of crimes they were not charged with, invent precedent and on the whole acted in complete bad faith.
    It's not just labour unions, it's scientists and legal ethicists. These are people with no personal connection or vested interest in the case at all but who are literally so appalled by the miscarriage of justice that has happened that they've felt compelled to intervene.

    No, Ray Rice's double jeopardy claim was against his team. His appeal against the NFL was won on the grounds that Goodell straight up lied about Rice's level of co-operation, a tactic the Commissioner also used against Brady when he thought the interview transcript were to be kept secret.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    There's a huge difference between what the court verdict said- that Goodell's conduct was not in bad faith and so did not violate either the CBA or rule of shop, and what you are implying- that the CBA explicitly allowed Goodell to act in bad faith.
    Regardless, the whole point is that the 2nd circuit got it wrong. This is the overwhelming view of the legal community. I've not seen or heard one legal expert advocate for the NFL or against Brady in this matter. You can't then cite the 2nd circuit as evidence that the 2nd circuit was right.

    There's no special case or rules for sportsmen. The NFL's CBA is just like any other. And again, it doesn't matter what is in the CBA, it must still follow the law. A fair punishment for terms laid out by the CBA, with a fair and impartial appeals process is completely reasonable. No where however in the CBA does it say the appeals arbitrator can escalate proceedings to find players guilty of crimes they were not charged with, invent precedent and on the whole acted in complete bad faith.
    It's not just labour unions, it's scientists and legal ethicists. These are people with no personal connection or vested interest in the case at all but who are literally so appalled by the miscarriage of justice that has happened that they've felt compelled to intervene.

    No, Ray Rice's double jeopardy claim was against his team. His appeal against the NFL was won on the grounds that Goodell straight up lied about Rice's level of co-operation, a tactic the Commissioner also used against Brady when he thought the interview transcript were to be kept secret.
    Errrr what.......The second district verdict is all that matters right now until stated otherwise. Not the opinion of any legal expert, the pope or God. They're the only one who aren't biased and until another superior court says they're wrong they're right. That's how the legal system works.

    Ray rice was straight up dj. Goddell suspended him for 2 games then later wanted to suspend him indefinitely when the video became public claiming he hadn't seen it before. That was accepted as a list and the only original 2 game suspension stood. He didn't 'win' any case against the Raven.

    http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/5/2...apology-ravens
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atom y humber)
    Errrr what.......The second district verdict is all that matters right now until stated otherwise. Not the opinion of any legal expert, the pope or God. They're the only one who aren't biased and until another superior court says they're wrong they're right. That's how the legal system works.

    Ray rice was straight up dj. Goddell suspended him for 2 games then later wanted to suspend him indefinitely when the video became public claiming he hadn't seen it before. That was accepted as a list and the only original 2 game suspension stood. He didn't 'win' any case against the Raven.

    http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/5/2...apology-ravens
    That's a premature declaration, since the issue clearly isn't resolved and is undergoing appeal.
    Regardless even if it was resolved, judges are not infallible. To acknowledge a clearly faulty decision simply because it was given by a judge is dangerous.
    Not to mention it has nothing to do with the original point, which is where you claimed that the CBA allows Goodell to ignore due process, which is entirely false.

    I never said he 'won' anything against the Ravens. I said that's where the double jeopardy claim is from. The courts ruling against Goodell is clear- the judge found based on the fact Goodell lied. This contradicts the notion the CBA makes the commissioner God.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    That's a premature declaration, since the issue clearly isn't resolved and is undergoing appeal.
    Regardless even if it was resolved, judges are not infallible. To acknowledge a clearly faulty decision simply because it was given by a judge is dangerous.
    Not to mention it has nothing to do with the original point, which is where you claimed that the CBA allows Goodell to ignore due process, which is entirely false.

    I never said he 'won' anything against the Ravens. I said that's where the double jeopardy claim is from. The courts ruling against Goodell is clear- the judge found based on the fact Goodell lied. This contradicts the notion the CBA makes the commissioner God.
    Are you been facetious? How does it contradicts? The judges said so. You seem to just want to ignore them. That's not how it works. It's more dangerous to go on what people especially when said people haven't heard the evidences from both side than and have a vested interest on one side. Court make mistakes but they get it right majority of the time so I'm going with them until otherwise
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well just cause the Judges said so doesn't make it correct. Lets not forget at this point its 2 for Brady 2 for Goodell. Wasn't ever going to be a surprise though when Parker voted in the NFL's favor. Man is completely anti labor .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atom y humber)
    Are you been facetious? How does it contradicts? The judges said so. You seem to just want to ignore them. That's not how it works. It's more dangerous to go on what people especially when said people haven't heard the evidences from both side than and have a vested interest on one side. Court make mistakes but they get it right majority of the time so I'm going with them until otherwise
    I've already explained how it contradicts what you said. You've claimed the CBA allows Goodell to ignore due process, which is a bizarre claim. Due process can not be ignored. The judges simply didn't think Goodell did, rather than the CBA superseded due process.
    The entire legal community of America is on Brady's side here. He has so far had twelve legal experts, on three separate occasions, without any solicitation, file amicus briefs to the court pointing out how stupid it's decision was. These people have no vested interest in the case at all and no connection to Brady or the Patriots.
    All evidence is known and available, so that argument doesn't hold up. In fact if anyone hasn't read all the available evidence it was the judges. Judge Denny Chin (who went to law school with John Mara) declared that evidence of ball tampering was compelling. Now tell me the judge didn't get it completely wrong specifically there. It's been scientifically and logically proven well beyond reasonable doubt that there was no tampering of the balls.
    As for the CBA, just read some extracts from the briefs. I've quoted some a few posts back.
    Your blind faith in the the verdict, considering the circumstances, is irrational.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Lads I'm suffering withdrawal symptoms from the lack of football :sad:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Fantasy football planning time soon?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malevolent)
    Lads I'm suffering withdrawal symptoms from the lack of football :sad:
    Got Amazon Prime?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    Got Amazon Prime?
    I do, what's on it?

    I've got NFL Gamepass but it probably won't get used until Training Camp begins and the fun starts again. This little bit between OTAs and Training Camp is by far the worst part of the season. The best thing that can happen is nothing.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wattsy)
    I do, what's on it?

    I've got NFL Gamepass but it probably won't get used until Training Camp begins and the fun starts again. This little bit between OTAs and Training Camp is by far the worst part of the season. The best thing that can happen is nothing.
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01HFO03...&pf_rd_t=12401

    This is way way way better than nothing. I'm only 2 episodes in but people are saying it's better than Hard Knocks and I can sort of see why.

    I think my Gamepass auto-renews this month, probably when camp starts. Not sure if I actually want it this year.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Oh yeah, I heard about this. I'll give it a look, I love Hard Knocks so if this is even better I'll be impressed.

    My Gamepass is just the offseason version because the Draft is my exam revision season antidote. I think if I have a real job by the end of August I'll get the proper version and not have to deal with erratic streams. If I supported the Cowboys or another big market team it'd be fine but hardly anyone streams Jags v other small market teams. Maybe if they're a better side though they'll get more primetime TV slots. There's certainly a debate to be had as to its usefulness.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Seeing all the **** going on in the NBA right now makes me glad i have NFL to follow.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheLittlestElf)
    Seeing all the **** going on in the NBA right now makes me glad i have NFL to follow.
    The NBA salary cap situation seems like an absolute joke. There's no way GSW would have got that stacked with NFL style rules. Not like they hit on drafted rookies on cheaper contracts either. It's like Denver after winning the Superbowl being able to re-sign all of their massive FA's.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered sport threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.