Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Grantland)   The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Jonathan Vilma case. Also helpful for people who aren't Saints or Falcons fans   (grantland.com) divider line 24
    More: Interesting, Jonathan Vilma, nfl preseason, Eastern District, Jeffrey Kessler, Saints, NFLPA, home field advantage, irreparable damage or injury  
•       •       •

1342 clicks; posted to Sports » on 14 Aug 2012 at 2:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-14 02:08:27 PM  
Yeah, that's pretty much the long and short of it. Good article.
 
2012-08-14 02:32:25 PM  
(By the way, let's settle down with the notion that Judge Berrigan is leaning toward Vilma because she's a Saints fan. Home field advantage only gets you so far in federal court. And, I'll let someone else accuse a federal judge of being biased. Even if Judge Berrigan is a Saints fan, she's probably a bigger fan of not being reversed on appeal.)


that's farkiung funny.


Well, it will obviously be a huge win for the NFLPA and will put a dent in the scope of the commissioner's powers, but it won't get them what the players truly sought (and what Chad Johnson will want if he feels the wrath of the commissioner for his alleged domestic violence) - real independent review of commissioner discipline for off-field misconduct.

they they should have bargained for it, which they didn't. as we've heard only 9,471 times since the Bountygate scandal popped, the Steelers were the only team that voted against the CBA. Whatever your feelings are on Goodell and his use of power, they NFLPA negotiated the CBA, now they want to run to federal court when they don't get their way.

i think long term, the NFLPA will find a federal court will rule in their favor and ultimately, this aspect of the 2011 CBA will be revisited/renegotiated. With several players in several federal circuits either under suspension or facing suspension, someone -- notwithstanding teh claim preclusive / issue preclusive effects that inevitably will arise between various litigants in federal circuits vs. the NFL -- will find the right forum to clip Goodell's wings. IN MY OPINION.
 
2012-08-14 02:38:55 PM  
Shorter version - Goodell wins and the players have no recourse because they signed the collective bargaining agreement
 
2012-08-14 02:41:51 PM  
So, while she feels bad for the guy, it's a contract that she really can't do anything about. Got it.
 
2012-08-14 02:42:40 PM  
So are the refs holding out for more leverage, depending on how the Bountygate thing shakes out?
 
2012-08-14 02:43:13 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Shorter version - Goodell wins and the players have no recourse because they signed the collective bargaining agreement



Welp.....it is a little known fact, perhaps you didn't hear, but....The Steelers were the only team that voted against the CBA.

/That Guy
 
2012-08-14 02:46:39 PM  

star_topology: So are the refs holding out for more leverage, depending on how the Bountygate thing shakes out?



the refs are negotiating their own CBA; they don't have a dog in this fight. or stated differnetly, if they were to sue the NFL under the NFLPA CBA, they'd have no standing. they aren't party to the agreement so they can't invoke it.
 
2012-08-14 02:54:14 PM  
Thats no idiot's guide cause Too many readings
 
2012-08-14 02:55:43 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Shorter version - Goodell wins and the players have no recourse because they signed the collective bargaining agreement


Not quite troll.

FTA: "The judge also strongly suggested - but made no formal ruling - that the bounty scheme was a pay-for-performance issue covered by Article 14 of the CBA.

A formal ruling that this was in fact an Article 14 issue would be significant because the system arbitrator, and not the commissioner, has exclusive jurisdiction over issues covered under Article 14 (additionally, suspensions are not permitted for violations of Article 14). In other words, if this is a pay-for-performance/Article 14 issue and not a "conduct detrimental" issue, Goodell would have no authority to punish the players and their suspension would be vacated (perhaps pending another arbitration heard by someone other than Goodell). The system arbitrator, Professor Stephen Burbank, rejected this very argument by the NFLPA on June 4. A three-member arbitration panel will hear an appeal of that ruling on August 30."


As the link say. The judge may be waiting to see if the panel overturns Professor Burbank's ruling on August 30 before making a ruling of her own.
 
2012-08-14 03:18:04 PM  
+1 on the headline
 
2012-08-14 03:19:30 PM  

rickythepenguin: , she's probably a bigger fan of not being reversed on appeal.)

that's farkiung funny.


Yeah, I laughed

they NFLPA negotiated the CBA, now they want to run to federal court when they don't get their way.

'bout right. The practical definition of "contract" needs to be rewritten. Unless it's going to help you, in which case you'll have more luck praying for a reach-around.

Reminds me of a friend's wedding, the priest said "marriage is not like football, you can't renegotiate the contract" and rambled down that path for several minutes. Good thing I sent my friend to the altar with a couple of shots of 151 in him.
 
2012-08-14 04:24:02 PM  
Suppose I'm the NFLPA and the owners want near-unlimited powers for the Commisioner. If my lawyers look at it and "we can have that thrown out in Federal Court whenever he overreaches" then damn write I let them have that in exchange for something I want.
 
2012-08-14 04:25:01 PM  
... write??... right, even.
 
2012-08-14 04:30:29 PM  

rickythepenguin: i think long term, the NFLPA will find a federal court will rule in their favor and ultimately, this aspect of the 2011 CBA will be revisited/renegotiated. With several players in several federal circuits either under suspension or facing suspension, someone -- notwithstanding teh claim preclusive / issue preclusive effects that inevitably will arise between various litigants in federal circuits vs. the NFL -- will find the right forum to clip Goodell's wings. IN MY OPINION.


I dont see why you feel that will be revisited, if they rule this way then every union contract is not worth the paper its printed on and the unions could sue for whatever they wanted if they felt pissy, this could set a huge precedent which would open up the floodgates.

And as a falcons fan, vilma is not a big deal for suspension then by the time this is finished the season will be almost done and he wont play anyway.

Also as a falcons fan, the hatred just isnt as strong on our end, until the past few years if you lost to the saints you knew you were one of the worst teams in the league so basically it was used as a gauge for how shiatty your team was, that changed with brees but as his contract negotiations have shown us, its that the saints management will still find a way to fark it up.
 
2012-08-14 04:57:58 PM  

steamingpile: Also as a falcons fan, the hatred just isnt as strong on our end, until the past few years if you lost to the saints you knew you were one of the worst teams in the league


It's always funny to hear a Falcons fan refer to another team as "one of the worst teams in the league" so I decided to look it up for shiats and giggles.

Saints all-time vs. Falcons: 40-46-0

2010's: 3-1
2000's: 13-7
1990's: 7-14
1980's: 10-9
1970's: 6-14
1960's: 1-1

Looks to me like the Falcons have been "one of the worst teams in the league" a lot this millenium.

Also, why were there 21 games in the 90's? Did they meet in the playoffs?
 
2012-08-14 05:01:40 PM  
So does this article mean we won't have threads full of bandwagon Saints fans telling everyone there was no evidence of a bounty scheme when the judge finally rules in their favor in two weeks...even though the judge heard no evidence about the bounties and isn't deciding the case based on that at all?

/doubt it
//"HA the NFL has no evidence that's why the Saints won!!"
///wonder who the Boobies in that thread will be
 
2012-08-14 05:19:53 PM  

Slow To Return: Looks to me like the Falcons have been "one of the worst teams in the league" a lot this millenium.


Yes, we know. That was part of the joke, the saints always got up for that game, I have no idea why but they did so if we lost to them then the fans could realize we really suck that year.

And I think you are counting a game from the 80s in the 90s, the 80s only has 19 and it should be 20 as well.

js34603: So does this article mean we won't have threads full of bandwagon Saints fans telling everyone there was no evidence of a bounty scheme when the judge finally rules in their favor in two weeks...even though the judge heard no evidence about the bounties and isn't deciding the case based on that at all?


They cant grasp the fact the lawsuit is just about the commissioner's right to suspend the players, it looks like he has the authority but the players want it to be decided by a panel since they claim it happened on the field, the judge is basically saying the commissioner is right that the pay for play is an off the field issue.
 
2012-08-14 05:25:36 PM  
Once the Head Coach and Defensive Coordinator confessed, I don't think its article 14. Just like Louisiana (Bastion of Truthiness) State Police found no evidence of spying by them. Who cares, they be guilty.

/Every Falcons fan knows we suck historically.
 
2012-08-14 05:33:03 PM  

steamingpile: And I think you are counting a game from the 80s in the 90s, the 80s only has 19 and it should be 20 as well.


The 80's had a strike shortened year, and the 90's had a playoff game.

Thus, 19 games in the 80's and 21 games in the 90's is correct.
 
2012-08-14 05:37:36 PM  

steamingpile: the judge is basically saying the commissioner is right that the pay for play is an off the field issue.


Ugh, I'm so confused now. I thought the judge called the NFL's stance that "pay for play" is an off the field issue "borderline ridiculous"?
 
2012-08-14 06:52:12 PM  

Slow To Return: steamingpile: the judge is basically saying the commissioner is right that the pay for play is an off the field issue.

Ugh, I'm so confused now. I thought the judge called the NFL's stance that "pay for play" is an off the field issue "borderline ridiculous"?


Warm up the goalpost movers.
 
2012-08-14 07:09:20 PM  
Or unlike the lawyer who wrote that article, the judge realized she was not supposed to grant an injunction because the damages to Vilma if he doesn't play are monetary and don't require injunctive relief.
 
2012-08-14 11:12:32 PM  

Slow To Return: The 80's had a strike shortened year, and the 90's had a playoff game.

Thus, 19 games in the 80's and 21 games in the 90's is correct.


Ahh forgot about the strike, still thats how we gauged our team in the past but the rivalry was not a big deal since most of those years we still finished with a better record, seems saints fans hung their season on beating the falcons which is really stupid, kind of like GT fans who usually dont care if they lose 8 games as long as they beat UGA.

Slow To Return: steamingpile: the judge is basically saying the commissioner is right that the pay for play is an off the field issue.

Ugh, I'm so confused now. I thought the judge called the NFL's stance that "pay for play" is an off the field issue "borderline ridiculous"?


If you read it more, the initial statement was it seemed ridiculous which saints fans grabbed onto but its the "pay" part that is the biggest issue and none of that happened on the field which is what they were suspended for, shiat that happened off the field.
 
2012-08-14 11:38:18 PM  

steamingpile: If you read it more, the initial statement was it seemed ridiculous which saints fans grabbed onto but its the "pay" part that is the biggest issue and none of that happened on the field which is what they were suspended for, shiat that happened off the field.


Yeah, that's Goodell's tortured reasoning, but that's not what the judge has agreed with at all. Goodell classified it as conduct detrimental, which meant off-the-field, which meant he could rule on it. Judge: "They were clearly being punished (for wrongs committed) on the playing field." Called the NFL's interpretation "borderline ridiculous." So no, your saying "the judge is basically saying the commissioner is right that pay for play is an off the field issue" is absolutely false.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report