Saints player bounty suspensions overturned on appeal.

ACW · Post by **ACW** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:41 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/report-saints-bounty-bans-overturned/2012/09/07/48a6be18-f926-11e1-a073-78d05495927c_blog.html
Bull.

So bounties are okay. But violating the spirit of the salary cap in an uncapped year isn't. My head hurts.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:48 pm

They weren't really overturned. The were sent back to Godahell for a determination of which of two rules were broken. Was it a salary cap violation in that the players were payed extra under the table, or was it a violation of the conduct policy in trying to injure players for money.

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:59 pm

Deadskins wrote:They weren't really overturned. The were sent back to Godahell for a determination of which of two rules were broken. Was it a salary cap violation in that the players were payed extra under the table, or was it a violation of the conduct policy in trying to injure players for money.

Gray area.

“Until that determination is made, the four players are reinstated and eligible to play starting this weekend.”

Any Führer ... I mean further news?

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:40 am

Saints player bounty suspensions overturned on appeal

By Albert Breer
Reporter, NFL.com and NFL Network
Published: Sept. 7, 2012 at 03:41 p.m.
Updated: Sept. 8, 2012 at 12:35 a.m.
232 Likes | 724 Comments

Email
Print

Read
Discuss

A collective bargaining agreement appeals panel overturned the NFL's suspensions of four players for their involvement in the New Orleans Saints' "bounty" program, NFL Players Association spokesman George Atallah said Friday.

While the suspensions are vacated immediately, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell can go back and suspend the four players if he proves there was an intent to injure. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said all players are eligible to play, starting this weekend, until Goodell does so.
Rosenthal: A setback for the NFL
No matter how you slice it Gregg Rosenthal says, Friday's decision to overturn the players' "bounty" suspensions isn't good news for the NFL. More ...

Saints DE Smith plans to play Sunday
Video: A short-lived celebration?
Video: Saints' Harper reacts to news

According to Larry Holder of The Times-Picayune, Aiello said Goodell will not re-rule on the player suspensions before Sunday's games.

"Consistent with the panel's decision, Commissioner Goodell will, as directed, make an expedited determination of the discipline imposed for violating the league's pay-for-performance/bounty rule," Aiello said in a statement. "Until that determination is made, the four players are reinstated and eligible to play starting this weekend."

Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma was suspended for the entire 2012 season, free agent Anthony Hargrove for eight games, Saints defensive end Will Smith for four games and Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita three games.

Fujita and Hargrove played for the Saints during the program's duration, from 2009 to 2011, under former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, who was suspended indefinitely by the NFL. The suspensions of Williams, coach Sean Payton (season-long), general manager Mickey Loomis (eight games) and assistant head coach Joe Vitt (six games) weren't involved in this appeals process.

The NFL Players Association noted its support of the overturned player suspensions in a statement: "We are pleased that the appeals panel ruled unanimously to lift the players' suspensions immediately. We will continue to vigorously protect the rights of all players."

Vilma took to Twitter to express his satisfaction about the ruling, writing: "Victory is mine!!!!."

Hargrove's agent, Phil Williams, wouldn't comment on his client's status. Williams also wouldn't say whether or not teams had begun calling him now that Hargrove is eligible to be on the field for the opening week of the 2012 NFL season.

"It's all too new," Williams told NFL.com and NFL Network reporter Ian Rapoport.

When asked if his client is physically able to play after being released by the Green Bay Packers in August, Williams said: "Of course. He's ready to play if he falls out of bed after a month."

According to a source close to Smith, the defensive end plans to play Sunday in the Saints' regular-season opener against the Washington Redskins and has been led to believe by the team that he will play.

"Thank you to everyone involved in the process of this solution," Smith tweeted. "And everyone who supported us through this whole ordeal"
Fujita also shared his gratitude on Twitter: "I'm overwhelmed with all the support. Thank you so much everyone. Can't tell you how much it means to me."

The Saints received a roster exemption for Vilma so they will not have to make a corresponding roster cut to accommodate the linebacker. But Smith now counts against the team's active roster.

Mary Kay Cabot of The Plain Dealer first reported the Browns had been granted a roster exemption for Fujita.

Saints safety Roman Harper said he'd welcome the return of his defensive teammates, Vilma and Smith.

"Well, if coach (Aaron) Kromer would let him come out, I'd definitely like to play with these guys," Harper told reporters.

"I'm excited," Saints quarterback Drew Brees told NFL.com and NFL Network reporter Aditi Kinkhabwala. "I've been focused on the game, but I hoped that that would be the case. No, I'm not surprised. I wouldn't call me surprised. Obviously, they saw the information that we've seen for a long time."

ACW · Post by **ACW** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:49 am

DarthMonk wrote:
Deadskins wrote:They weren't really overturned. The were sent back to Godahell for a determination of which of two rules were broken. Was it a salary cap violation in that the players were payed extra under the table, or was it a violation of the conduct policy in trying to injure players for money.

Gray area.

“Until that determination is made, the four players are reinstated and eligible to play starting this weekend.”

Any Führer ... I mean further news?

Dude, please, no Nazi references :roll:

Bob 0119 · Post by **Bob 0119** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:43 am

This is bull.

The Redskins had no reason to include these guys in their game plan. Now they have no time to consider them.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:57 am

Not sure why you chose the Lounge for this. This was already reported and is being discussed in ATL.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:46 pm

This is in the wrong forum, but it should get its own thread. Moving now . . .

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:57 pm

This ruling is inconvenient for the Redskins, but I think it's the right thing to do.

If these players were involved in deliberately trying to harm other players, then suspensions are in order. But Godell has gone about this entirely the wrong way. In typical fashion he's arbitrarily exercised power, overstepped his bounds, and refuses to acknowledge it. The initial appeals were little more than Godell thinking to himself "Am I sure?" and then saying "Yeah, I'm sure."

The treatment these NO players have received has been little better than the treatment the Redskins have received. Goodell deserves as many, as trivial, and as obnoxious legal hurdles as his opponents can throw in his way.

So I sympathize with them, even though I suspect they are guilty of deliberately trying to injure players and participating in a bounty program. But the point isn't whether they are ultimately guilty; it's about whether Godell is allowed to do whatever the hell he wants and impose discipline "because I said so." "Because I said so" is not good enough for me. If more people were standing up to the top guys in the NFL, maybe unfair rulings like the Redskins cap penalty wouldn't happen. My 2 cents

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:06 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:This ruling is inconvenient for the Redskins, but I think it's the right thing to do.

If these players were involved in deliberately trying to harm other players, then suspensions are in order. But Godell has gone about this entirely the wrong way. In typical fashion he's arbitrarily exercised power, overstepped his bounds, and refuses to acknowledge it. The initial appeals were little more than Godell thinking to himself "Am I sure?" and then saying "Yeah, I'm sure."

The treatment these NO players have received has been little better than the treatment the Redskins have received. Goodell deserves as many, as trivial, and as obnoxious legal hurdles as his opponents can throw in his way.

So I sympathize with them, even though I suspect they are guilty of deliberately trying to injure players and participating in a bounty program. But the point isn't whether they are ultimately guilty; it's about whether Godell is allowed to do whatever the hell he wants and impose discipline "because I said so." "Because I said so" is not good enough for me. If more people were standing up to the top guys in the NFL, maybe unfair rulings like the Redskins cap penalty wouldn't happen.

This ruling says he needs to decide what he is really suspending them for, so he can turn around and do the same thing again. At that point the players are no longer the being punished, they will have all been on the roster for week one... guaranteeing their 2012 salaries. The Saints would lose the players for however long but the players would not lose what they stood to lose if this ruling didn't come down until next week.

Then again Roger may have agreed to this when it came out that the Skins had more cap space than Mara's crew and then ttiT smacked them around in public last week :twisted:

welch · Post by **welch** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:50 pm

Mind-boggling.

The players should have been suspended for intent-to-injure. Plain and simple.

Furthermore, the players' cases should be linked to Gregg Williams and the coaches: if the players did not commit a crime against the sport, then how can the coaches be "convicted" of having ordered it?

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 10:45 pm

welch wrote:Mind-boggling.

The players should have been suspended for intent-to-injure. Plain and simple.

Furthermore, the players' cases should be linked to Gregg Williams and the coaches: if the players did not commit a crime against the sport, then how can the coaches be "convicted" of having ordered it?

The suspensions were not "overturned." Godahell has to clarify what they were suspended for (extra pay, or intent to injure), then the suspensions will be reinstated, and the appeals process can begin anew.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 10:56 pm

Bob 0119 wrote:This is bull.

The Redskins had no reason to include these guys in their game plan. Now they have no time to consider them.

What guys?

welch · Post by **welch** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:23 pm

Deadskins wrote:
welch wrote:Mind-boggling.

The players should have been suspended for intent-to-injure. Plain and simple.

Furthermore, the players' cases should be linked to Gregg Williams and the coaches: if the players did not commit a crime against the sport, then how can the coaches be "convicted" of having ordered it?

The suspensions were not "overturned." Godahell has to clarify what they were suspended for (extra pay, or intent to injure), then the suspensions will be reinstated, and the appeals process can begin anew.

- How could there have been a choice, even, between intent to injure and "extra pay"?

- Would that mean Gregg W and associates might be guilty of nothing more than over-paying some players?

- Imagine: MLB discovers that a team has been paying bonuses to pitchers who hit batters hard enough that the batters go in the disabled list. Would organized baseball -- the most craven of establishments -- charge, say, Lendy Castillo for hitting Bryce Harper in the head (if he had), or for taking more money than was on his contract?

Goodell makes even "that suit occupying the Commisioner of Baseball's office" look like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:32 pm

welch wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
welch wrote:Mind-boggling.

The players should have been suspended for intent-to-injure. Plain and simple.

Furthermore, the players' cases should be linked to Gregg Williams and the coaches: if the players did not commit a crime against the sport, then how can the coaches be "convicted" of having ordered it?

The suspensions were not "overturned." Godahell has to clarify what they were suspended for (extra pay, or intent to injure), then the suspensions will be reinstated, and the appeals process can begin anew.

- How could there have been a choice, even, between intent to injure and "extra pay"?

- Would that mean Gregg W and associates might be guilty of nothing more than over-paying some players?

- Imagine: MLB discovers that a team has been paying bonuses to pitchers who hit batters hard enough that the batters go in the disabled list. Would organized baseball -- the most craven of establishments -- charge, say, Lendy Castillo for hitting Bryce Harper in the head (if he had), or for taking more money than was on his contract?

Goodell makes even "that suit occupying the Commisioner of Baseball's office" look like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

I agree, but that's the decision. Is it a salary cap issue, or is it a conduct issue?

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:52 pm

I'll be very surprised if the players can get this changed - it's only my opinion but, from all acounts, the players were instructed by Greg that they would be paid 'rewards' for taking out opposing players

I understand what the players are trying to do but even stupid Godahell is not suspending a guy for a whole year for just being the ringleader in a scheme to reward players for just playing a little harder and trying to help the team win a game