The totalitarian regime of Roger Goodell

[IllegalContact]

According to @WallachLegal, CA8 also ruled that the commissioner is "not forever bound by historical precedent". And they strongly hinted that the commissioner is free to ignore NFL arbitration precedent from as little as six years ago. Even more permission for him to be completely arbitrary.

I don't know when, but the rooster always comes home to roost..........when goodell falls, he will fall hard

 

[IllegalContact]

... something tells me NFLPA/NFL will reach an impasse on the next labor agreement negotiations and we might miss a few regular season games ... if there will be one

all it takes is a few games to be forfeitted.......don't know how, don't know when.........but watch

 

[The Gr8est]

So what bearing on a potential Brady defamation case does this ruling have, if any?

A defamation case would allow Brady to make the case that he never did what he was accused of, even if it didn't result in a lessening of already imposed penalties.

 

[IllegalContact]

So what bearing on a potential Brady defamation case have, if any?

A defamation case would allow Brady to make the case that he never did what he was accused of, even if it didn't result in a lessening of already imposed penalties.

yes!!! because the world now needs to wring its hands over this ****!!!

LMAO.......just go watch football

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

If "integrity of the game" is simply whatever Goodell says it is with no meaningful mechanism for reviewing his decisions, then what's the point of watching? 100% serious question.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

If "integrity of the game" is simply whatever Goodell says it is with no meaningful mechanism for reviewing his decisions, then what's the point of watching? 100% serious question.

For me it's just too watch the end of two GOATs finish their careers. I'm not really invested in anything besides BB and TB. Yes the field is tilted against them, but I still want to watch their finales. After that I don't see a reason to watch WWE lite.

 

[Gronkowski123]

hey bob

time to issue a public apology to goodell.

 

[Froob]

Roger could sentence a player to death for breathing too loudly and the court would uphold it saying the CBA doesn't specify that he can't.

 

[flasox27]

Let us not overlook the man who left his wife's deathbed to facilitate the CBA. Thank you Bob being the POS best buddy .

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

For me it's just too watch the end of two GOATs finish their careers. I'm not really invested in anything besides BB and TB. Yes the field is tilted against them, but I still want to watch their finales. After that I don't see a reason to watch WWE lite.

Watching the two GOATs get screwed by an "off the chain" narcissist is not my idea of good time. He's biased. He's unfair. Our dysfunctional court system is okay with this. I'm not.

Do you think these recent court decisions are going to encourage this lunatic to behave himself? I really don't want to see what new ideas he has for torpedoing the Patriots that he now has the green light to implement.

It's been a fun ride but I've seen quite enough.

That plus the fact that we now know that this sport is much more dangerous than we thought, maybe it's for the best if we all tune out for good.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

Not if you consider things like fundamental fairness.

Here's the rule:
“Once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers, ball boys, and coaches, is allowed to alter the footballs in any way. If any individual alters the footballs, or if a non-approved ball is used in the game, the person responsible and, if appropriate, the head coach or other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000.”

Suppose you were walking outside in a park and saw a sign that said, "No littering. Anyone caught littering will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $100."

Now, if you saw that, and you littered, and you got arrested, what would you expect the fine to be? $100. If you REALLY littered a ton, maybe $500. It has to be in the BALLPARK of what the fine schedule calls for.

Do you think any judge would allow a person being caught littering around that sign to be put in prison for a year for that offense? No chance in hell. That's because fundamental fairness has to be assumed. So the fine/penalty schedule in the NFL exists to tell people how serious these offenses are. Look at the NFL fine schedule.

Scroll down and see what the second offense for "excessive profanity" is: $23,152. In other words, tampering with the footballs is given roughly the same weight as a second offense at really bad swearing.

So if Brady really tampered with footballs in a bad, bad way, yeah, you expect it to be more than $25,000. But a four game suspension (and again, the NFL said they were considering EIGHT) is like being put in prison for six months for a littering.

It's so far beyond the bounds of what is fair and reasonable, but the court in the Peterson case just said that "Fundamental fairness is not a basis for vacatur identified in the Labor Management Relations Act or the Federal Arbitration Act." In other words, Goodell can now literally punish any player ANYTHING for ANY OFFENSE, real or imagined, and the courts just gave him carte blanche.

Better yet, suppose you were walking thru the park and the wind blew a poster off of a pole. A cop walks by and says you littered. You say "No I didn't" . The cop says " Its there, I think, more probable than not, you did". The courts fine you as much as they want.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

Again, Article 46 has been part of the CBA for a long long time. It's just never been abused this way before. It was never haggled over because they had no reason to believe the Commish would use it to arbitrarily punish players since no one had every used it that way before. Now, I will say that the NFL CBA is the worst out of the four major US sports but not because they allowed Article 46.

Exactly.. and the thing that is so confusing to me is the leeway provided to the nfl where things aren't clearly defined.. shouldn't the leeway be in favor of the union?

I'm not articulating this well and typing from my phone before a meeting, but this seems like backwards logic where you have to define every single theoretical scenario in the CBA, otherwise Goodell can do whatever he wants? Seems that Goodell should be limited to defined scenarios in what he can do.. if it's outlined in the cba then he can do it, if it's not clear then he shouldn't be able to do ****... but this ruling states the opposite

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I'm not articulating this well and typing from my phone before a meeting, but this seems like backwards logic where you have to define every single theoretical scenario in the CBA, otherwise Goodell can do whatever he wants? Seems that Goodell should be limited to defined scenarios in what he can do.. if it's outlined in the cba then he can do it, if it's not clear then he shouldn't be able to do ****... but this ruling states the opposite

I don't think you have to worry about listing all sorts of detailed scenarios going forward.

You "just" need to put broad protections into the CBA. For example, negotiate a CBA that says the arbitrator and arbitration process "must provide 'fundamental fairness' and must not be 'evidentially partial'" and "Nothing in this agreement should be construed as a waiver of the ability to make any claims of bias or 'evident partiality" and "The arbitrator cannot add or consider any grounds for punishment that were not in the decision being appealed to the arbitrator" and "The arbitrator is required to arbitrate in good faith". And then have a definition section in the agreement that defines "fundamental fairness", "evident partiality", "good faith", etc. in terms of standard legal standards.

And no, I won't be holding my breath that this'll ever happen.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Watching the two GOATs get screwed by an "off the chain" narcissist is not my idea of good time. He's biased. He's unfair. Our dysfunctional court system is okay with this. I'm not.

Do you think these recent court decisions are going to encourage this lunatic to behave himself? I really don't want to see what new ideas he has for torpedoing the Patriots that he now has the green light to implement.

It's been a fun ride but I've seen quite enough.

That plus the fact that we now know that this sport is much more dangerous than we thought, maybe it's for the best if we all tune out for good.

Nope I fully expect things to get worse now that Rog feels even more empowered. I definitely understand saying enough is enough.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

I don't think you have to worry about listing all sorts of detailed scenarios going forward.

You "just" need to put broad protections into the CBA. For example, negotiate a CBA that says the arbitrator and arbitration process "must provide 'fundamental fairness' and must not be 'evidentially partial'" and "Nothing in this agreement should be construed as a waiver of the ability to make any claims of bias or 'evident partiality" and "The arbitrator cannot add or consider any grounds for punishment that were not in the decision being appealed to the arbitrator" and "The arbitrator is required to arbitrate in good faith". And then have a definition section in the agreement that defines "fundamental fairness", "evident partiality", "good faith", etc. in terms of standard legal standards.

And no, I won't be holding my breath that this'll ever happen.

I thought every contract came with "the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" but it's been awhile since 1st year law school and this country seems to have abandoned "rule of law" for quite some time now.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I thought every contract came with "the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" but it's been awhile since 1st year law school and this country seems to have abandoned "rule of law" for quite some time now.

That's what really amazes me most about the CA2 and CA8 decisions -- that they view there's no good faith requirement in this contract.

 

[ivanvamp]

That's what really amazes me most about the CA2 and CA8 decisions -- that they view there's no good faith requirement in this contract.

And that's why I hope the Supreme Court takes it up. You simply cannot have a situation where the people in charge and who arbitrate between parties has no obligation to act in good faith or fundamental fairness.

What kind of arbitration process is it if the arbiter has a totally free hand to act without any regard for fairness? That's what the courts have just granted Goodell and perhaps any arbiter in any other business moving forward.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

And that's why I hope the Supreme Court takes it up. You simply cannot have a situation where the people in charge and who arbitrate between parties has no obligation to act in good faith or fundamental fairness.

What kind of arbitration process is it if the arbiter has a totally free hand to act without any regard for fairness? That's what the courts have just granted Goodell and perhaps any arbiter in any other business moving forward.

Right. It would seem to me that this would kill arbitration, or at least labor arbitration. Why would you ever negotiate a CBA that provides for arbitration if the arbitrator can do what he damned well pleases?

 

[Galeb]

Right. It would seem to me that this would kill arbitration, or at least labor arbitration. Why would you ever negotiate a CBA that provides for arbitration if the arbitrator can do what he damned well pleases?

Which goes to show how far gone our court system is.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

According to @WallachLegal, CA8 also ruled that the commissioner is "not forever bound by historical precedent". And they strongly hinted that the commissioner is free to ignore NFL arbitration precedent from as little as six years ago. Even more permission for him to be completely arbitrary.

Goodell's Arbitrator chambers has been redecorated with "Kneel before Zod" wallpaper.