The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V2

adrian522 · 03-11-2017 02:47PM

brinty wrote: »

Its nonsense no court in the US will convict Elliott of any crime as the supposed victim had no credibility when questioned and the case was thrown out and the judge said the victim wasted several peoples time and resources yet Roger could impose a six game suspension on him under CBA.

None of us were present when the alleged acts happened to state if they happened or not so why should Elliott not try and clear his name?? Lets not forget one more strike and he could kicked out of the game for life and it is based on a first strike from something that may not have ever happened.

Where did you get the idea that the burden of proof for an NFL suspension is the same as in a criminal court?

Plenty of players have served suspensions without being convicted of anything. You may not think it is right or agree with it but I don't see why this is some special case different to all the others.

brinty · 03-11-2017 02:56PM

adrian522 wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that the burden of proof for an NFL suspension is the same as in a criminal court?

Plenty of players have served suspensions without being convicted of anything. You may not think it is right or agree with it but I don't see why this is some special case different to all the others.

Agh no i get that Adrian and i'm not saying its a special case, it very clearly isn't.. its more a knock at the whole system of how the Goddell can impose any sentence he so wishes acting as judge jury and executioner

The pats dragged a whole year out of deflategate so i think the cowboys have a right to keep going until the can go no further.

The next CBA will be very very interesting and article 46 will be a huge bone of contention.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 03-11-2017 03:05PM

brinty wrote: »

Agh no i get that Adrian and i'm not saying its a special case, it very clearly isn't.. its more a knock at the whole system of how the Goddell can impose any sentence he so wishes acting as judge jury and executioner

The pats dragged a whole year out of deflategate so i think the cowboys have a right to keep going until the can go no further.

The next CBA will be very very interesting and article 46 will be a huge bone of contention.

Brinty just on this case , the prosecutor said he believed the girl in question, he just didn't have the evidence to prove it in court.

Not the first incident where the police were called on Zeke involving this girl either.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 03-11-2017 03:06PM

Hococop wrote: »

Is zeke being made the scapegoat over the mess up with ray rice?

He’s been made an example of so Rodger/NFL can point toward it as how hard they are on this type of thing.

Goodell showed his true colours with Ray Rice. An open and shut case, where Rice accepted what he did; 2 game ban.
Now it’s 6 games, when there is no proven guilt and a very dodgy accuser.

It’s just a PR exercise at this stage.

phatkev · 03-11-2017 03:11PM

Knex. wrote: »

Zay Jones got his first NFL TD last night. Had a rough year, but had read from Bills fans that he was finally picking it up a little the past few games when on opposition no2 CBs.

He then gets tripped (deliberately I feel) on a route and suffers what appears to be a nasty injury. NFL this year man...

The incident: https://streamable.com/js4rl

It was definitely deliberate, he was about to leave Skrine in the dust, with a lovely little double move

brinty · 03-11-2017 03:17PM

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Brinty just on this case , the prosecutor said he believed the girl in question, he just didn't have the evidence to prove it in court.

Not the first incident where the police were called on Zeke involving this girl either.

Agh i knew those things too and i'm not in any way saying Zeke is innocent. As you say it wasn't the first time. Having read several books about college football and how the victims of these incidents across various college programs can be hushed up etc I would never take things at face value. I think a player should be allowed the opportunity to try to clear their name too. If guilty absolutely they should be kicked straight out.

Hococop · 03-11-2017 03:21PM

Only actual evidence they have (from what I've heard) to say he might have done something is when he pulled her top down at a party/event, not domestic violence but they seem to think it's enough to say he might have hit her

Foxtrol · 03-11-2017 03:26PM

brinty wrote: »

Agh no i get that Adrian and i'm not saying its a special case, it very clearly isn't.. its more a knock at the whole system of how the Goddell can impose any sentence he so wishes acting as judge jury and executioner

The pats dragged a whole year out of deflategate so i think the cowboys have a right to keep going until the can go no further.

The next CBA will be very very interesting and article 46 will be a huge bone of contention.

The players, owners, and NFLPA loved the Goodell being judge, jury, and executioner when he was doling out incredibly light sentences. I wouldn't be surprised during the last CBA if they all would have fought against having an independent person in that role, as they thought the NFL would continue to brush issues under the carpet and keep players on the field where at all possible (like their farce of a drug testing policy and associated suspensions).

I can't see it being that big of a bone of contention. No way players will try to hold out over an issue like if they aren't convicted criminally then they can't be punished. It would be a terrible look for them. It will go to an independent person in that role but the larger bans we see these days and lower level proof than criminal convictions will stay.

brinty · 03-11-2017 03:27PM

Hococop wrote: »

Only actual evidence they have (from what I've heard) to say he might have done something is when he pulled her top down at a party/event, not domestic violence but they seem to think it's enough to say he might have hit her

Hoco, I believe that was a separate incident at a club this past St Patricks day in Dallas and involved a random fan. That is a very cut and dried incident and Zeke is very definitely guilty there. Cowboys brought him in afterwards and had a more than stern conversation with him as the case was hanging over him. This is unconnected to the incident with his ex whilst in college at Ohio that he's been banned for 6 games for.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 03-11-2017 03:35PM

Hococop wrote: »

Only actual evidence they have (from what I've heard) to say he might have done something is when he pulled her top down at a party/event, not domestic violence but they seem to think it's enough to say he might have hit her

different incidents and in the one you refer to he pulled down a random girls top. He got fined by the cowboys the other player got let go.

The incident with domestic violence there are plenty of pictures and bruises of the girl in question.

Hococop · 03-11-2017 04:05PM

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

different incidents and in the one you refer to he pulled down a random girls top. He got fined by the cowboys the other player got let go.

The incident with domestic violence there are plenty of pictures and bruises of the girl in question.

My bad thought it was the same person, but it still seems Roger is using that one incident to say Zeke could still be guilty of dv because of that which seems wrong

Hococop · 03-11-2017 04:06PM

Out of curiosity if it was a 2-3 suspension would he have just taken it or is it more to clear his name

brinty · 03-11-2017 04:16PM

Hococop wrote: »

Out of curiosity if it was a 2-3 suspension would he have just taken it or is it more to clear his name

He's trying to clear his name. As i said earlier if he's accused and/or convicted of another incident Roger could kick him out of the game forever as things stand.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 03-11-2017 04:46PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

No way players will try to hold out over an issue like if they aren't convicted criminally then they can't be punished.

I don't think that's the bone of contention and I haven't seen anyone make that case.

Had he been given a suspension based on the pulling down the ladies top; ok, it's cut and dry.
Had a number of witnesses seen him pull down the top and made statements (without a vid); ok, there's something there.
Had someone accused him, no one else saw it and it's a case of word v word; then no, it's not enough to suspend someone.

6 games is a huge suspension, so it should require a lot of evidence (esp given the character of the accuser); not Rodger/NFL on a PR stunt.

Foxtrol · 03-11-2017 05:00PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I don't think that's the bone of contention and I haven't seen anyone make that case.

Had he been given a suspension based on the pulling down the ladies top; ok, it's cut and dry.
Had a number of witnesses seen him pull down the top and made statements (without a vid); ok, there's something there.
Had someone accused him, no one else saw it and it's a case of word v word; then no, it's not enough to suspend someone.

6 games is a huge suspension, so it should require a lot of evidence (esp given the character of the accuser); not Rodger/NFL on a PR stunt.

If you haven't seen anyone make that case then you haven't read any of the Brady or Zeke discussions as it gets thrown up in every debate about Goodell banning a top player. It was even mentioned a few posts ago:

brinty wrote: »

Its nonsense no court in the US will convict Elliott of any crime...

Brinty goes on to give examples as to why not court would convict him but the point was that no court would convict him. No matter who decides you're always going to have to set a burden of proof for whoever is adjudicating on this.

For example, given the facts at play here the prosecutor involved in this, knowing more facts than we do including her inconsistencies, was of the opinion that he committed domestic violence against her.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 03-11-2017 05:10PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

If you haven't seen anyone make that case then you haven't read any of the Brady or Zeke discussions as it gets thrown up in every debate about Goodell banning a top player. It was even mentioned a few posts ago:

Brinty goes on to give examples as to why not court would convict him but the point was that no court would convict him. No matter who decides you're always going to have to set a burden of proof for whoever is adjudicating on this.

For example, given the facts at play here the prosecutor involved in this, knowing more facts than we do including her inconsistencies, was of the opinion that he committed domestic violence against her.

Yep, I have to agree. If the prosecutor, who we have to imagine has all the facts available is of the opinion that Zeke committed the acts against her then I think a six game ban is justified.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 03-11-2017 05:18PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

If you haven't seen anyone make that case then you haven't read any of the Brady or Zeke discussions as it gets thrown up in every debate about Goodell banning a top player.

No they don't. They mention court of law, but never say that it def shouldn't mean a suspension. More an argument that the case is weak to impose such high suspensions. We all know it doesn't have to have the same level of proof; so I don't know why people have to jump it at every opportunity to point of the obvious.

Foxtrol wrote: »

For example, given the facts at play here the prosecutor involved in this, knowing more facts than we do including her inconsistencies, was of the opinion that he committed domestic violence against her.

About as relevant to say the 'facts' presented by the defendants lawyer was of the opinion that he was innocent.

We have no idea of his guilt or non guilt. And the prosecutor decided not to proceed with the case.

Foxtrol · 03-11-2017 05:34PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

No they don't. They mention court of law, but never say that it def shouldn't mean a suspension. More an argument that the case is weak to impose such high suspensions. We all know it doesn't have to have the same level of proof; so I don't know why people have to jump it at every opportunity to point of the obvious.

About as relevant to say the 'facts' presented by the defendants lawyer was of the opinion that he was innocent.

We have no idea of his guilt or non guilt. And the prosecutor decided not to proceed with the case.

He didn't proceed with the case because he didn't believe that he could meet the criminal burden of proof. You are doing what you claimed you have never seen someone do before, using the criminal court burden of proof to muddy whether he should be punished by the NFL.

If your contention is that people don't believe that the burden of proof should be the same as a criminal court then you do they (including yourself) keep bringing up that the person hasn't/wouldn't be found prosecuted/found guilty?

j8wk2feszrnpao · 03-11-2017 05:52PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

He didn't proceed with the case because he didn't believe that he could meet the criminal burden of proof.

And because he had an accuser that lied to the police and tried to get someone else to lie to the police.

Foxtrol wrote: »

You are doing what you claimed you have never seen someone do before, using the criminal court burden of proof to muddy whether he should be punished by the NFL.

No I'm not, cause I already stated that I don't.

Foxtrol wrote: »

If your contention is that people don't believe that the burden of proof should be the same as a criminal court then you do they (including yourself) keep bringing up that the person hasn't/wouldn't be found prosecuted/found guilty?

It is not my contention, cause I stated that it wasn't.
"More an argument that the case is weak to impose such high suspensions."

Can't make it more simple than actually having to write and rewrite it multiple times......

Foxtrol · 03-11-2017 06:19PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

And because he had an accuser that lied to the police and tried to get someone else to lie to the police.

No I'm not, cause I already stated that I don't.

It is not my contention, cause I stated that it wasn't.
"More an argument that the case is weak to impose such high suspensions."

Can't make it more simple than actually having to write and rewrite it multiple times......

So you're not using the fact that there was no prosecution as a reason for why he should not be punished but instead using it as a mitigating factor in why he should receive a lesser punishment?

j8wk2feszrnpao · 03-11-2017 06:54PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

So you're not using the fact that there was no prosecution as a reason for why he should not be punished but instead using it as a mitigating factor in why he should receive a lesser punishment?

Just a factor to consider, along with everything else.

The case was weak because the accuser lied, and tried to get others to lie; there was actual evidence against her, which maybe she should be prosecuted for (if the prosecutor is looking for a case).

All this doesn't mean that Zeke is innocent. If he had been hit for a 2 game ban for the incident where he pulled down the ladies top, I don't think it could be argued much.

Ultimately, none of this may matter. The Brady case means that evidence isn't overly a concern; the commissioner has the power to suspend you if he wishes cause that's what's in CBA.

I'm only stating where I think the system is flawed and that certain powers need to be taken away from the commissioner; cause this back and forth to the courts is a joke. All this money, all this time and energy, all this suspended/back-playing, .................. it shouldn't happen.

For me it weakens a very serious issue. The NFL have gone soft on actual cases of domestic abuse, where the evidence was there. And yet this is the one they decide to take action on?

CardinalJ · 03-11-2017 07:55PM

phatkev wrote:

and Whitney Mercilus, he's a seriously underrated piece of that defence!

You should join the texans fans. Mercilus is a beast.

TOss Sweep · 03-11-2017 09:14PM

brinty wrote: »

Sorry to ask but could we set up a separate Colin Kaepernick thread perhaps... this is now page on page off kaep talk

Swings and roundabouts this thread. Can we get a separate thread for all the Zeke Stuff? :pac:

helimachoptor · 03-11-2017 09:16PM

Maybe we need an off topic off topic thread

mikemac2 · 03-11-2017 09:18PM

bring back the days when mods had pics of cheerleaders throwing flags when they wanted posters to cop on

TOss Sweep · 03-11-2017 09:22PM

helimachoptor wrote: »

Maybe we need an off topic off topic thread

Someone will just post in that one that its off topic so it will then become off topic for the topic in the off topic thread to begin. Sorry for going off topic

D9Male · 03-11-2017 11:18PM

Now we have all had time to digest it, any further thoughts on Deflategate?

brinty · 03-11-2017 11:48PM

TOss Sweep wrote:

Swings and roundabouts this thread. Can we get a separate thread for all the Zeke Stuff?

Touche sir

Could a mod please post a picture with a cheerleader throwing a flag at me

j8wk2feszrnpao · 04-11-2017 12:06AM

It's the NFL. I'm sure something very weird, very wacky and awesome is just around the corner ............ :P

04-11-2017 12:42AM

D9Male wrote: »

Now we have all had time to digest it, any further thoughts on Deflategate?

Do you reckon the pats will stick with Brady or put Bledsoe back in

The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V2

Comments