Well anything is possible beach...I'm obviously assuming they will be 8-0, but tryin to keep it real.
I hope you are right, I’m in the court that he got off on a technicality with Judge Robinson. It felt like she wanted to give more, but based on wording in the CBA, she couldn’t. Leaving the door open for someone else to do so.
What technicality? Sue Robinson is probably the only person on the planet that based an opinion on pure facts. Not conjecture. Not emotions. Facts - Period. In the end she chastised BOTH the NFL and Watson. The NFL for (a) not clearly stating what constitutes a violation of the policy, (b) a lack of consistency in handing out discipline when the poorly written policy is violated and (c) falling back on the court of public opinion to determine the extent or need for discipline. Then went on and chastised Watson for his (apparent) lack of self control when encountering female massage therapists.
P.S. Someone needs to tell ESPN that Tony Buzbee isn't Watson's attorney. He's the attorney for the accussors.
The technicality is the language that states a first time offender of non-violent sexual assault gets a 6 game suspension. BECAUSE if that language, she didn’t feel that she could make it any higher even if someone deserves more.
NFL has a real problem when you can be suspended less for sexual misconduct than for smoking weed (Josh Gordon 78 games, Ricky Williams 16 games) or gambling (Calvin Ridley 16 games).
IF that language is in the NFL policy, it's not a technicality. It's the letter of the law. I'm impressed. I was not aware that Sue Robinson shared her feelings with you.
It’s a fucking policy, not a law. you’ve taken curmudgeon, thrown it out the window and went to straight ass hole. Read the complete report. It doesn’t take a genius to understand what she is stating. Edit: if she found him to have exhibited predatory actions, that would mean she felt he had violated the policy on more than just one case. If it were all 4 cases “technically” she could apply the 6 games to each case individually, even if it is a singular hearing that all were presented. Actual language calls for the possibility of more if aggravating circumstances are present. They gave specific examples of crimes against a child or use of a weapon, but it isn’t limited to that. Having multiple victims, or “predatory behavior” (her exact words) could certainly be defined as aggravating circumstances.
Holy shit, it’s getting hostile in here. @Jeanquev has a valid point, why attack him? I get some of the trolls that come through, but his post isn’t trolling, it’s a subject being discussed across all media.
Yes Ben should have been suspended longer as well but that just proves the point I was already making that the NFL has a serious problem when it comes to suspending players.
I heard something on sports talk radio this morning, that hits home with this. He said, "the problem isn't a 6 game suspension for Watson vs any other punishment handed out to any of the other players. It is what it is, the CBA stipulates what is what. The problem is that the CBA doesn't respect women enough." I would give him credit, but being totally honest, I was listening to ESPN Cleveland early morning, which is usually a hodge podge of who knows who will be on and what will be discussed. It was around 6:15 am and frankly, I don't know who was hosting this morning. There were two dudes and a woman speaking and they were discussing the discrepancy in NFL suspensions this past year and Watson only receiving 6 games. The female stated something to the effect, it shows that the league holds PED and gambling to a much higher standard than domestic issues, the other male through in that he blames the NFL for only bringing up 4 cases, then the other male said what I have in quotes above. It's true, there isn't enough specific language in there to cover every situation... how can there be? But, when they put in first offenders receive a 6 game suspension, that kind of closed the door for some who would interpret it (like Judge Robinson) that it is the only option for suspension on the first offense. They make everything vague, but then put in a specific time frame. The league and NFLPA screwed up. They need to form a committee made up of a league representative (designated by the commissioner), an owner representative (preferably an owner or spouse of an owner), (2) NFLPA representatives (preferably a union rep as well as a chosen player or spouse of a player), (2) representatives of team staff members (preferably female, since the list is growing quickly), Then (4) at large representatives, of which at the very least (1) is from a women's group, (1) is from a child advocate group and at least (1) is from a prominent minority advocate group. I would certainly think with a committee like that, they could come up with something better than the current version of the policy. They have a lot of checks and balances on the committee and with the voices of every athlete and potential victim represented. I wish they had given Watson a year suspension, but with the way the CBA is written I understand Judge Robinson's conclusion. If I were the NFL, I would agree to the outcome and announce something similar to what I proposed up top, which should satisfy the majority of those that will be criticizing the league if they don't appeal and add on games. Give a deadline of about 6 months, so that it has time to be voted on at the owners meeting and by the union in time for the new league year to begin in 2023.
I know it's difficult but I think you guys should just avoid the Watson subject and discuss everything else Browns. Everyone has made their feelings on the subject pretty well known and unlike evaluating players or coaches those opinions aren't going to change. Just agree to disagree and move on. The Browns board is my favorite place to talk football and you guys are screwing it up for me! Stop thinking about yourselves for a few minutes and think about Beach! Okay??!!
I think calling someone a straight ass hole seems more hostile than saying shut up, but whatever. If you can show me where jeanquev was up in angst over the Roethlisberger suspension back in the day, demanding he get a longer suspension, then I'll apologize. lol! Just kidding. Sorry Jean. With all the chatter of a year long suspension getting everyone's hopes up, I completely understand why Judge Robinson's decision disappointed some.
That is valid... However, I was being attacked, Jeanquev was not attacking anyone, he was just reiterating a talking point that is happening on media outlets, that hasn't really been discussed here. Regardless, I admit that I was harsh in response to Lym and apologize to him and everyone else on this board.
