Thread: Watson apparently not happy.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

The Texans hope more games are tacked onto the suspension since they own the Browns' first-round pick next spring. Making him sit 12+ games almost assures a top-5 draft position on top of their own suckass draft position. The Texans will need it too given their awful draft back in April - a CB with a history of injury troubles and an OL who can only play guard at the next level. That's what they got with two top-15 draft choices.

If Watson sits 12 games or the entire year like the league claims they want the Texans could very well have the #1 and #2 overall picks in the draft which would set them up great granted they nail the two picks . However I don’t see how the league wins the appeal. They gotta do it though to make the sponsors think they actually care and want him grounded for the year when they really don’t.

The idea that the league doesn't actually want him suspended and this is all an act for the sponsors is absurd. If Watson plays this year, he's going to be the top story every week and the coverage will be nothing but how the NFL doesn't care about women. There is zero chance the NFL wants any part of that.

the Texans could very well have the #1 and #2 overall picks in the draft which would set them up great granted they nail the two picks .

The top two picks in the draft are expected to be the QB from Alabama and the QB from Ohio State. For public consumption, the Texans are gobsmacked in love with their current QB, Davis Mills from Stanford who fell to them in the third round. A lot depends on how he performs this year but the Texans might be looking to trade down if they got a top-2 choice.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

The person who heard the NFL's case and issued the recommendation for a 6 game suspension.

Judge Robinson was the person appointed by Goodell to handle disciplinary cases for the NFL as designed in the most recent CBA. She was supposed to take the heat off Goodell by making the rulings. It seems really bad form to appeal her very first decision in this new position, particularly since the defendants are 20+ females. I would have thought the response would be "well, if a woman judge thought six games was appropriate, who are we to disagree with her?"

If I were Judge Robinson, I'd resign in protest as soon as the appeal is determined. Her judgement is being called into question by the league which was supposed to be why she was hired in the first place.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

The top two picks in the draft are expected to be the QB from Alabama and the QB from Ohio State. For public consumption, the Texans are gobsmacked in love with their current QB, Davis Mills from Stanford who fell to them in the third round. A lot depends on how he performs this year but the Texans might be looking to trade down if they got a top-2 choice.

Imagine how they would own the draft board If mills proves to be something this year… so they can trade away a 1&2 pick.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

Judge Robinson was the person appointed by Goodell to handle disciplinary cases for the NFL as designed in the most recent CBA. She was supposed to take the heat off Goodell by making the rulings. It seems really bad form to appeal her very first decision in this new position, particularly since the defendants are 20+ females. I would have thought the response would be "well, if a woman judge thought six games was appropriate, who are we to disagree with her?"

If I were Judge Robinson, I'd resign in protest as soon as the appeal is determined. Her judgement is being called into question by the league which was supposed to be why she was hired in the first place.

Her judgement literally said that Watson egregiously broke multiple facets of the league's personal conduct policy. She ruled that the NFL proved their case. It's absurd that she only gave out 6 games, and the NFL was right to appeal. Maybe she was hesitant for the first suspension she gave out to be a huge one? If that's the case she probably should resign.

Also, I'm sure she knew when she took the job that the NFL was allowed by the cba to appeal her ruling, and she knew they wanted a year, so I'm not sure why she'd be surprised they are appealing.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Her judgement literally said that Watson egregiously broke multiple facets of the league's personal conduct policy. She ruled that the NFL proved their case. It's absurd that she only gave out 6 games, and the NFL was right to appeal. Maybe she was hesitant for the first suspension she gave out to be a huge one? If that's the case she probably should resign.

My understanding is that she relied on past punishments to determine this one…but each of the punishments she used were singular incidents as opposed to 20+ from Watson. She argued that since there is no jeopardy posted or know to players for specific behaviours like that she couldn’t go as far as the nfl wanted.

Originally Posted by Eddiemac87

My understanding is that she relied on past punishments to determine this one…but each of the punishments she used were singular incidents as opposed to 20+ from Watson. She argued that since there is no jeopardy posted or know to players for specific behaviours like that she couldn’t go as far as the nfl wanted.

Which to me is BS. It's ok to give an unprecedented punishment for an unprecedented case.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Which to me is BS. It's ok to give an unprecedented punishment for an unprecedented case.

Agree….. she did a great analysis of the behaviour … but fell way short in terms of punishment…

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Which to me is BS. It's ok to give an unprecedented punishment for an unprecedented case.

Absolutely.

This was egregious. Its sends a pretty massive message, you can go ahead and be a predator, and have little fear of your employer causing you harm.

I used to really enjoy this league and the entertainment that it offered. Right now, not so much, poor negotiating on the labor front on multiple levels. The willingness to allow truly garbage people to be part of it because we all know the dollar is far more important than the integrity of the whole.

Rant over.

Is it the employer's job to punish you for off-work misconduct? If you do something awful while on the job, yes, your employer should punish you. But, otherwise, isn't it up to the police and the courts to seek justice?

Let's say you decided to rob a bank and you got arrested while pulling the job. However, the courts found you 'not guilty' due to lack of evidence or nobody could prove conclusively that you were the robber and not just some guy who dropped in to cash a check. Assuming that handling funds was not part of your job responsibilities, should the employer discipline you, even though the courts couldn't convict you?

What if you were driving home drunk from a party? Is your employer supposed to dock your pay if he finds out?

NFL players have a clause in their contract that makes them subject to suspensions and fines for conduct detrimental to the league, so this is moot with regards to Watson but I don't feel it is necessarily the employer's job to discipline for malfeasance unrelated to his role as employee.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

Is it the employer's job to punish you for off-work misconduct? If you do something awful while on the job, yes, your employer should punish you. But, otherwise, isn't it up to the police and the courts to seek justice?

Let's say you decided to rob a bank and you got arrested while pulling the job. However, the courts found you 'not guilty' due to lack of evidence or nobody could prove conclusively that you were the robber and not just some guy who dropped in to cash a check. Assuming that handling funds was not part of your job responsibilities, should the employer discipline you, even though the courts couldn't convict you?

What if you were driving home drunk from a party? Is your employer supposed to dock your pay if he finds out?

NFL players have a clause in their contract that makes them subject to suspensions and fines for conduct detrimental to the league, so this is moot with regards to Watson but I don't feel it is necessarily the employer's job to discipline for malfeasance unrelated to his role as employee.

Depends. Your company can fire you for saying dumb things on Facebook, happens with alarming regularity. If your actions can cast your employer in a negative right they have the right to terminate your employment regardless if the conduct was at work or not or in any way related to your duties. Most states have "at will" employment which means either party has the right to terminate the working agreement for any legal reason (ie. you can't be terminated for refusing to break the law).

Originally Posted by Krugan

Absolutely.

This was egregious. Its sends a pretty massive message, ...

A pretty massive massage message, if I may say so.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

Is it the employer's job to punish you for off-work misconduct? If you do something awful while on the job, yes, your employer should punish you. But, otherwise, isn't it up to the police and the courts to seek justice?

Let's say you decided to rob a bank and you got arrested while pulling the job. However, the courts found you 'not guilty' due to lack of evidence or nobody could prove conclusively that you were the robber and not just some guy who dropped in to cash a check. Assuming that handling funds was not part of your job responsibilities, should the employer discipline you, even though the courts couldn't convict you?

What if you were driving home drunk from a party? Is your employer supposed to dock your pay if he finds out?

NFL players have a clause in their contract that makes them subject to suspensions and fines for conduct detrimental to the league, so this is moot with regards to Watson but I don't feel it is necessarily the employer's job to discipline for malfeasance unrelated to his role as employee.

Damaging the reputation of your company is 100% grounds for punishment or termination, yes. Especially when the contract you sign includes an off-field personal conduct policy.