So, how come after her analysis that previous precedent lands her at 6 games; she didn’t decide for 3 x 6 = 18 games.
that seems to work in criminal trials where serial murders get multiple life sentences. Even though they only have one. And lesser crimes get multiple 5 or 7 year terms adding up to 15 or 21 years.
Why: I defer/lend most credence to theory that others stated: she left room for GotoHell to maneuver and tack on more.
She said that precedent under current written policies landed her at 3 games based on Jameis Winston's drunken groping of an Uber driver, and since Watson was "egregious" she doubled it to six games.
She pointed out the NFL changed its rules after the Ray Rice FUBAR which only allowed the League to give Rice two games.
If you recall, the follow-on indefinite suspension of Rice once the video was released was tossed out by the arbitrator.
Rice never played again because no one would touch him, not because he was suspended.
Then:
When Commissioner Goodell followed such precedent despite the violence of Rice’s conduct, a public outcry ensued. The NFL responded by revising its Policy to include a presumptive 6-game suspension without pay for certain first-time violent offenders, including for Policy violations involving: (1) criminal assault or battery (felony);(2) domestic violence, dating violence, child abuse and other forms of family violence; or (3) sexual assault involving physical force or committed against someone incapable of giving consent. By revising its Policy, the NFL gave fair notice to its players and to the public of the probable consequences of certain violent conduct.
Since we have no evidence that Watson was violent (in the legal, physical sense), the judge says he doesn't fall under this rule.
The NFL basically said it was impossible to be consistent and use the precedents, the judge wasn't buying that.
She in essence is saying the players deserved advance notice of what penalty would be applied to a given crime.
NFL again suggests what Watson did fit none of the categories, since they asked for indefinite suspension with one year minimum for reinstatement.
She has a strong point, if your written policy only gives six games for first time violent sexual assault, how can we give more for non-violent sexual assault?
Yet, Watson did it repeatedly and with forethought, so shouldn't that be taken into consideration too, rather than just lumping him in with other "first time" offenders?
I guess we're going to find out how far Roger can stray from the written policies.
Personally, I feel the six game suspension with minimal financial implications does not fit the crime.