Appeals panel has overturned Bountygate player suspensions

[Deus Irae]

Unless I'm misinterpreting, it almost sounds similar to declaring a mistrial. Basically, some of the criteria Goodell used to punish the players was outside of his jurisdiction, so the suspensions have been temporarily wiped out and those criteria are no longer submittable. The suspensions are still coming, he just doesn't have quite as much firepower to work with anymore. Is that right?

Yes, although he'll need enough evidence of intent to make this stick. That will be interesting, because you're looking at a conspiracy here.

Conspiracy requires an overt act. Players who started the bounty pool, players who contributed to the bounty pool, and players who took money from the bounty pool should still be worried about suspensions. Beyond that, as long as the player didn't say/do something that can be tied to it ("pay me!", etc...), they should be safe.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Breer hadn't even read the ruling yet and he's not a lawyer. Florio hasn't read it either.

Best follow is Gabe Feldman

https://twitter.com/SportsLawGuy

 

[Deus Irae]

Exactly, and the pay for play pool is still punishable, only by Burbank as a cap violation.

Well, it's reviewable. I doubt Burbank will rule in favor of the NFL on this, in regards to the players. Coaches and teams putting money in is a separate issue.

 

[BradyBranch39]

Regardless whether he gets his way in the end, the fact that he suspended these guys without providing evidence makes Goddell look bad.

 

[Deus Irae]

Regardless whether he gets his way in the end, the fact that he suspended these guys without providing evidence makes Goddell look bad.

This would be true, if it were what actually happened. However, Goodell did provide evidence.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Exactly, and the pay for play pool is still punishable, only by Burbank as a cap violation.

Wouldn't it be up to TEAMS to not violate cap rules, thus leaving players not punishable for that type of violation?

For example, Denver as a team got punished for giving Elway and others under-the-table money in the 90s, but those players didn't get punished also.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Regardless whether he gets his way in the end, the fact that he suspended these guys without providing evidence makes Goddell look bad.

This wasn't overturned based on evidence or lack thereof. It was overturned based on jurisdiction. Goodell retains his jurisdiction over personal conduct, but when he included the cap violation in the punishment (contributing to a pay for play program) he overstepped him jurisdiction. Burbank didn't see the blending of the two issues as sufficient to overturn. The appeals panel did. But they have remanded the whole mess back to Goodell for a procedural do over.

 

[AzPatsFan]

The legal weasels could and will F up a wet dream...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Wouldn't it be up to TEAMS to not violate cap rules, thus leaving players not punishable for that type of violation?

For example, Denver as a team got punished for giving Elway and others under-the-table money in the 90s, but those players didn't get punished also.

No, pay for play outside the cap is prohibited even if it's purely player run. Technically all these programs have been punishable regardless of intent to injure or bounty component. This is only the first one where the league uncovered documentation.

 

[Joker]

The Thrill Of Victory....

The Agony Of Defeat

 

[PatsDeb]

I cannot stand Goodell, and I am glad he lost on many levels. (and I do realize that at this point, he hasn't really "lost." Since he appears to be the type that can never admit defeat, he'll probably just say he had the proof for intent to injure and reinstate the suspensions).

However, with Tom Brady being one of the most gunned-for players in the NFL, I don't like the idea that players may take this as a sign that you can't be punished for this type of behavior because it's impossible to prove.

 

[pherein]

This would be true, if it were what actually happened. However, Goodell did provide evidence.

That didn't hold up in court:singing: and proved Goodell over stepped his
Authority. I believe that is what the judge is saying.

 

[PatsGirl2011]

Are these players going to be re-suspended by Monday then?

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Can he suspended them under the "criminal activity" provision. Unless the players reported said income on their taxes, they committed the crime of tax evasion.

 

[Buchanty]

That didn't hold up in court:singing: and proved Goodell over stepped his
Authority. I believe that is what the judge is saying.

It is easily misconstrued - best take on it is from @sportlawguy

"To sum up: Panel held this involved "conduct detrimental" & illegal payments. Commish only has power to punish for conduct detrimental. "

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The ESPN account has this tidbit from the appeals panel:

"In our view the alleged bounty program was both an undisclosed agreement to provide compensation to players and an agreement to cause injury to opposing players," league sources told Schefter.

meaning that they could get separate penalties for each, but not one penalty for both combined, and further that Goodell would not be the one to decide the penalty for illegal compensation

Suspensions for Jonathan Vilma, Will Smith, Scott Fujita, Anthony Hargrove overturned by appeals panel - ESPN

 

[Urgent]

Fascinating, and complex.

So that basic ruling relates to the fact that the players themselves cannot be punished for the "pay" aspect of the pool, but the "intent" aspect. The rules pointed out that they could not participate in such a pool, as I recall. Just participating was wrong. But apparently the 'jurisdiction' for that penalty is the court, not the league. Very very odd.

If they must be punished by the league only for intent, not the rules as previously communicated, which simply said participation, then, as others have noted, how do you prove intent? Yes, I participated in the pool. Yes, that player got injured. But I did not intend to injure him, I would never do that. Sort of a 'he thought, she thought' argument.

Further, since the players are now active, do they go on the 53? Do the teams have to release players? Do they get an exemption?

All these players will have their salaries guaranteed. If Vilma, for example, gets suspended for 16 games - or maybe reduced to say 12 games, will he be suspended without pay? Presumably a suspension will over-ride the veteran guarantee, but that's one more issue to argue.

The whole 'the league can't punish for participating in a pay-to-injure pool' which was previously discussed related to this case is very complex.

If, in the end, these players are vindicated, I don't think that's a good thing for the league. Like Goodell or not, if lawyers can get involved like this and argue against suspensions for violations of the CBA, in a dangerous game like football -- not sure I really like that direction. What about steroids? Where else does this lead? Do players now routinely hire a lawyer for the next suspension?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

What about steroids? Where else does this lead? Do players now routinely hire a lawyer for the next suspension?

The CBA is very specific on drug policy and suspensions for PEDs are solidly in Goodell's jurisdiction unless somehow proper procedures were not followed, such as in the Ryan Braun baseball case where a DNA sample was not stored properly. There is no wiggle room there.

 

[Urgent]

Interesting detail from the CBA, available on the NFLPA website:

(xv) Conduct detrimental to Club-maximum fine of an amount equal to one
week's salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks.This maximum applies without limitation to any deactivation of a player in response to
player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player's on-field playing ability),
and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the
limits set forth in this section.

It's a big document, and that is specific to 'conduct detrimental to Club' not 'detrimental to the League.' But an interesting line if it is relevant.

 

[lurker1965]

Regardless whether he gets his way in the end, the fact that he suspended these guys without providing evidence makes Goddell look bad.

I thought it made him look stupid, but I was wrong.

It was his face that made him look stupid.