NFL Thread

[Silver Raven]

The union's response to Jerry Jones:

http://verifiedpolitics.com/nfl-players-union-just-fired-back-cowboys-owner-ultimatum-protesting-players/

[BitterApple]

Don't the players have 20 other hours in the day where they can protest all they want? Why do they feel they have the right to bring their political beliefs into the workplace? I could care less at this point whether they stand or not, but Jerry signs the checks so he gets to call the shots. That's how it works at any place of business. This is getting ridiculous on all sides. It's ruining the entire season watching these idiots bicker back and forth like middle schoolers. 

[Jx223]

1 hour ago, BitterApple said:

Don't the players have 20 other hours in the day where they can protest all they want? Why do they feel they have the right to bring their political beliefs into the workplace? I could care less at this point whether they stand or not, but Jerry signs the checks so he gets to call the shots. That's how it works at any place of business. This is getting ridiculous on all sides. It's ruining the entire season watching these idiots bicker back and forth like middle schoolers. 

I think that issues like police brutality and racial discrimination are very important issues that people need to talk about. But I also feel like bringing political beliefs into the workplace can often be inappropriate. It's not inappropriate to bring it up if you work someplace like Congress, or if it's happening to you or people in your workplace. But most people probably can't really get away with using their workplace to push political beliefs or cause political change. The NFL is being a lot more accommodating to their employees than a lot of people's workplaces would be. Even though they are receiving some heavy backlash from some of their consumers. (It kind of feels like it's about 50/50 on where people stand with the anthem.)

It's gotten to the point now where you have many people trying to promote different things/push different agendas, with Trump now inserting himself into the mix. And it's becoming messy and annoying to some of us who just want to enjoy football/sports. None of these things are about football and a lot of people talking about these things don't really seem to care about football. 

I wish the owners/coaches would just let players do whatever they wanted to do in regards to the anthem (sit, stand, kneel, etc...) and not focus so much on it. Because it's divisive and annoying to many people for various reasons. I think it's doing more harm than good. As far as the players go, I think it's best if they just do whatever they feel in regards to the anthem, but focus more on their political beliefs/causes on their off time. (And I give a lot of them credit for already helping out in their communities.) They can ask the NFL for resources to help them do that on their off time. (Which I believe that players like Malcolm Jenkins are trying to do right now).

Edited October 10, 2017 by Jx223

[Calvada]

I think the call of the week was when Troy Aikman blamed Packers LT David Bakhtiari for allowing Aaron Rodgers to be sacked.  Bakhtiari was inactive for the game.  What was totally hysterical was that the FOX cameras showed him on the sideline, clearly not in uniform for the game.  There was an awkward few seconds of silence and then Aikman said oops, I meant Lane Taylor, because, well, David Bakhtiari is not playing in the game.  My question - does the FOX direcctor hate Aikman?  It seemed a deliberate attempt to embarrass their star analyst by showing him up.  

Aikman should do his homework.  The injuries to the Packers' offensive tackles have been big stories about that team in the past couple weeks.  Neither Bakh or Bulaga played against the Bears, and their availability for the Dallas game was in question right up until the inactives were announced.  

[xaxat]

Watching Bradford get up of the turf is so painful it makes me hurt.

[Silver Raven]

3 hours ago, BitterApple said:

Don't the players have 20 other hours in the day where they can protest all they want? Why do they feel they have the right to bring their political beliefs into the workplace? I could care less at this point whether they stand or not, but Jerry signs the checks so he gets to call the shots. That's how it works at any place of business. This is getting ridiculous on all sides. It's ruining the entire season watching these idiots bicker back and forth like middle schoolers. 

The publicity is the reason for these sorts of protest. And no, your employer does not get to tell you what political beliefs to have.

[BitterApple]

14 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

The publicity is the reason for these sorts of protest. And no, your employer does not get to tell you what political beliefs to have.

That's not what I said. People have the right to have any beliefs they want, they don't have the right to push political agendas at their workplace. Whoever owns the business sets the rules. The players are employees, not owners. They don't get to set the policy. They can choose to follow it or not, but then they also have to accept the consequences.

[pennben]

In typical Bears fashion, the first passing TD of the Trubisky Era was made by the Bears punter on a fake punt.  Sigh.  My Bears, just out there doing their own thing....again.  Although I do see signs of hope with Trubisky, let him learn this year.

[Silver Raven]

There are contracts.  Owners can't enforce rules not approved in the contract.

[ganesh]

There's also a CBA too. So I think if Jones cut a player over this he could have breach of contract. 

Honestly, no owner is cutting productive players over this. They didn't when players committed actual crimes. They'd just be signed somewhere else. 

[Minneapple]

Jerry Jones welcomed back woman beater Greg Hardy. But the guys who kneel, he’ll totally punish them.

Anyway, just want to note my disappointment with Kyle Rudolph for the Duck Duck Goose celebration. You play for Minnesota’s team, Kyle. It’s Duck Duck Grey Duck! Play it right, dammit!

Edited October 10, 2017 by Minneapple

[pennben]

5 hours ago, BitterApple said:

That's not what I said. People have the right to have any beliefs they want, they don't have the right to push political agendas at their workplace. Whoever owns the business sets the rules. The players are employees, not owners. They don't get to set the policy. They can choose to follow it or not, but then they also have to accept the consequences.

By the same token, the fans must understand they might not be the most important voice here right now. Most owners aren't going to penalize the players.  Maybe that will change at some point going forward, but for now, we are where we are.  So, fans can complain about their eyes burning for the minutes it takes the anthem to play, if they watch the anthem at all, or they can do something or they can deal with it.  Freedom of speech, while it can have non-governmental consequences, doesn't mean that there must be non-governmental consequences, even when you really, really want there to be such consequences. 

ETA:  Potential side-benefit of this mess...singers realize they should get on/get off with the anthem, rather than trying for the vocal machination record in extending the song to record lengths!  Maybe we'll all win after all!!!!

ETA2:  I really, really want to see how Jerry Jones would deal with Prescott and Elliot and Witten and Dez kneeling for the next anthem.  I would love to see his "patriotism" tested just as much as his support for domestic violence survivors:)  I'm sure he'd find a two-anthem policy exception for the players to get a second chance, or third or fourth.....

Edited October 10, 2017 by pennben

[Jx223]

4 hours ago, pennben said:

 

ETA2:  I really, really want to see how Jerry Jones would deal with Prescott and Elliot and Witten and Dez kneeling for the next anthem.  I would love to see his "patriotism" tested just as much as his support for domestic violence survivors:)  I'm sure he'd find a two-anthem policy exception for the players to get a second chance, or third or fourth.....

I think that if Jerry has to deal with any players kneeling for the anthem, it probably won't be those four guys. At least three of those players do not want to kneel for the anthem. Dak has said he wants to stand for the anthem and Dez seems very uncomfortable about the notion of kneeling for the anthem. He has been very adamant about not wanting to do it.

Jason Witten has also said he doesn't want to do it, (though he respects other players rights to protest). I don't think that Zeke has said much about it one way or the another but I don't really see him doing it either. (If only because he's doing with his DV accusations and probably doesn't want to draw any more negative attention to himself. Though he might even want to stand even under regular circumstances). 

I think it's possible that most of the Cowboys may not want to kneel for the anthem.  It may not end up being something that Jerry will really have to worry about enforcing. I don't think any of his stars are going to do it. (Though if they did, I don't think he would really punish them.)

Edited October 10, 2017 by Jx223

[ganesh]

No owner is going to bench players that give him a chance to win. 

Hey, we're 3-12 but no one kneeled! We'll see where the fans are in a 5 game self afflicted losing streak. I find much of the pearl clutching largely hollow. 

[FuriousStyles]

15 hours ago, BitterApple said:

Don't the players have 20 other hours in the day where they can protest all they want? Why do they feel they have the right to bring their political beliefs into the workplace? I could care less at this point whether they stand or not, but Jerry signs the checks so he gets to call the shots. That's how it works at any place of business. This is getting ridiculous on all sides. It's ruining the entire season watching these idiots bicker back and forth like middle schoolers. 

Do you realize that standing for the flag (at attention, hand on heart etc.etc.) IS a political statement?  It is an affirmation of what this country stands for (so we've been told).  The players arent the ones who decided to bring that into their game.  The NFL did. Why?  Because the military wanted to pay them millions of dollars a year to put on a show to increase visibility and perhaps recruitment.  And as has been discussed on various shows the NFL disrespects the flag every single game day.  They should keep all teams in the locker rooms (which I think was what they were doing prior to 2009) to avoid all this.

The players absolutely have a right to protest or exercise their 1st Amendment rights anywhere they want.  No legal employment contract can take away your freedoms as an American citizen.  What an employer can do is impose sanctions/disciplinary efforts on an employee if they do or say something they dont like (see Colin Kaepernick and Jemele Hill).  But it is up to that employee whether they want to take that risk.   

Jerry Jones just showed (not that I needed any proof) that his kneeling the other day was a complete farce.  Faker than a $3 bill. It burns me that no key player on the Cowboys would challenge him. Dak, Zeke and Dez arent going to kneel so Jerry can look like the big bad tough owner by default. 

Edited October 10, 2017 by FuriousStyles

[Irlandesa]

2 minutes ago, FuriousStyles said:

Do you realize that standing for the flag (at attention, hand on heart etc.etc.) IS a political statement? 

Thank you for pointing this out. 

I don't like that trying to make a statement against police brutality against minorities is considered "political."  "Don't fight for your human rights, kiddos, it's political."  Amazing how that always seems to work against oppressed people.

For the most part, since Kap wasn't in the league, this hasn't received much attention.  It was made political with a capital P once the P weighed in and when things seemed to be dying down again, the VP did his stunt and Jerry Jones made his statement which meant the sports shows were covering it...again.  If the NFL is worried about the controversy, they should just tell their network partners to be selective about who they show during the anthem instead of making ridiculous punishment statements...even if he technically has the right. (Although, he might still be on the hook for the contract depending on what the CBA says.)

[basiltherat]

If you were to espouse a cause at your workplace during work hours that took you away from the job you were being paid to do, the company has a right to fire you.  Even if there is a contact, there is always an out clause for disruptive behavior.  If you were espousing nudity and you were a kindergarten teacher and prances around naked, you would be dealt with in some way.

If you are being paid millions to play a child's game, you either follow the company manual or you can quit and take your money and put it where your mouth is.  

If the black players were so upset about race relations, why didn't they protest the whole eight years Obama was in office?  

[ganesh]

Since this is so new, I doubt there's anything in the CBA about it. It's not like there's moral clauses or anything. The fact that the entire "workforce" of the NFL are contracted employees makes it a lot different than working in an office or ER, whatever. I also doubt that many of us begin the "workday" with someone coming in to sing the anthem either. And if we did, they employees could opt out or kneel or whatever. 

Or, they could just not play it. I think we'll survive if we don't have the anthem for every single thing all the time. 

[mojoween]

Kneeling during the national anthem, while otherwise they would instead be standing there at the same time they are kneeling, has zero effect on them performing the job they are paid to do, which occurs in a specific 60 minute window.

So their demonstrations have nothing to do with their jobs.  If you can demonstrate and still perform your job because your demonstration doesn't happen when you would otherwise be working?  Then there is no issue.

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, basiltherat said:

 

If the black players were so upset about race relations, why didn't they protest the whole eight years Obama was in office?  

Kap started while Obama was in office.

[Jx223]

3 hours ago, FuriousStyles said:

It burns me that no key player on the Cowboys would challenge him. Dak, Zeke and Dez arent going to kneel so Jerry can look like the big bad tough owner by default. 

I think it's because they honestly don't want to protest against the anthem. Dez seemed really uncomfortable when he was asked if he wanted to kneel. There is a report that he had to be convinced to do it even when the team agreed to do it.

2 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Thank you for pointing this out. 

I don't like that trying to make a statement against police brutality against minorities is considered "political."  "Don't fight for your human rights, kiddos, it's political."  Amazing how that always seems to work against oppressed people.

 

People can and should fight for their rights, but I think it's unless it's a situation where their workplace is the reason for the oppression or somewhere where you can really enact change, it may not be the right place to do that. The NFL is not causing issues like police brutality. And thankfully neither is a lot of people's workplaces. So I don't really think it's the best place for people to heavily address these issues when they are conducting business.  I think that this whole anthem issue is divisive and destractive. It seems like a lot of people are talking about it during these protests more than they are racism, and police brutality. And I think that's a sign these anthems protests may not be really working.

I think that the best way for players to use the NFL for help with these issues is to meet with Roger Goodell and other executives to discuss getting support for them off the field. Maybe the NFL can sponsor some events to help people dealing with important issues. Players like Malcolm Jenkins are trying to do things like that.

I think that most of the other things that are needed to combat these issues need to be done off the field and have nothing to do with the NFL and anthem. Like reaching out to different groups in the community including disenfranchised groups and possibly law enforcement. As well as voting and maybe trying to talk/meet with actual politicians. (Things that I give credit to some players for doing)

1 hour ago, basiltherat said:

If you were to espouse a cause at your workplace during work hours that took you away from the job you were being paid to do, the company has a right to fire you.  Even if there is a contact, there is always an out clause for disruptive behavior. 

I don't think that  most people could get away with doing this at the workplace, and I don't think that the onus should be put on the NFL to be some main avenue to address these issues when they are conducting business.The NFL is not really responsible for these problems, all they can really do is offer assistance (like financial assistance) to players who want to help people. That's about it. I think that because the NFL is not a part of government, the legal system, law enforcement, etc....it can only do so much about these issues. 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Jx223

[ganesh]

I wonder where the clauses for disruptive behavior were in the contracts for obstructing a murder investigation, punching your girlfriend's lights out in an elevator, bringing a gun to a strip club and discharging it, driving drunk and killing someone, driving drunk and killing someone and then driving drunk again, running a criminal dog fighting ring, beating your child with a tree, or whatever the hell the Vikings did on the boat. And just because it wasn't "at work" is irrelevant because as we know so well, that everything is a distraction in the locker room, so it affected the "workplace." 

 

1 minute ago, Jx223 said:

The NFL is not causing issues like police brutality.

No they aren't. But there are suddenly a lot of white old white dudes dictating to young African-American men how they should adhere to a singular view of what it means to be American, through the perspective of a rich old white dude. The protests are against police brutality, that is also a symptom of institutional racism, which by kneeling, the players are exposing in all walks of society. I'd say they're working quite well, though maybe not in the way intended. 

Companies don't have a right to fire anyone cart blanche. Fireable offenses have to be in their contract, or there has to be a company handbook, HR training for new employees, etc. My contract says nothing about the anthem. If someone at work wanted us all to go outside and sing the anthem for whatever, victims of the hurricanes, I don't have to and they can't make me. We stand for the pledge at graduation. I don't say it and they can't make me. 

[mojoween]

@ganesh I could kiss you.  You put into words everything I was thinking but couldn’t spit out.  

The fact that it’s THIS issue, that doesn’t affect the play on the field in any possible way, is what is infuriating and shows how tone-deaf the owners can be.  Not that they care.

[ganesh]

I'm easy, but you need to buy me a drink first. 

[TobinAlbers]

Peterson traded to Arizona

Heh.

[xaxat]

NFL owners to discuss rule requiring players to stand during national anthem

30 white billionaires, Green Bay and Shad Khan. 

I wonder how that vote is going to go?

[Silver Raven]

I wonder how the next union negotiations are gong to go.

[ganesh]

Can they legally do that? I mean, is amending policy allowed in the CBA? This seems like a larger issue. 

[Fukui San]

7 minutes ago, ganesh said:

Can they legally do that? I mean, is amending policy allowed in the CBA? This seems like a larger issue. 

I've stopped asking this question after DeflateGate. If they can make up an offense and use it to punish a team for no reason, they can do this.

[Moose135]

17 minutes ago, xaxat said:

NFL owners to discuss rule requiring players to stand during national anthem

I always forget and read the comments after those stories.  Now I need to take a shower.

[ganesh]

6 minutes ago, Fukui San said:

I've stopped asking this question after DeflateGate. If they can make up an offense and use it to punish a team for no reason, they can do this.

That was dragged through the courts and it really only ended when Brady just dropped it. I'd say they got away with that more than the issue being legally resolved. That also involved a single player and team with a history of cheating (though not relevant imo). This affects the players at large so I think more would want to say something about it. It's a major policy change because now you're saying the NFL can control player speech. 

[Fukui San]

Just now, ganesh said:

That was dragged through the courts and it really only ended when Brady just dropped it. I'd say they got away with that more than the issue being legally resolved. That also involved a single player and team with a history of cheating (though not relevant imo). This affects the players at large so I think more would want to say something about it. It's a major policy change because now you're saying the NFL can control player speech. 

If it comes to it, I think the owners can outwait the players, whose career expectancies are only a few years. Unless the faces of the league like Brady or Rodgers kneel down in defiance, I don't think even borderline Pro Bowlers like Devin McCourty can weather the league directing them to stand, whether they have legal right on their side or not..

[ganesh]

It's not about standing or kneeling. It's a larger context now that the union can't fail to act on. 

[Crs97]

Quote

I think that this whole anthem issue is divisive and destractive. It seems like a lot of people are talking about it during these protests more than they are racism, and police brutality. And I think that's a sign these anthems protests may not be really working.

Kap was always clear about why he was kneeling.  A lot of people are talking more about the protests than the reasons behind the protests because they will do whatever it takes to avoid discussing the uncomfortable fact that racism still runs rampant in this country.

[FuriousStyles]

5 hours ago, Jx223 said:

I think it's because they honestly don't want to protest against the anthem. Dez seemed really uncomfortable when he was asked if he wanted to kneel. There is a report that he had to be convinced to do it even when the team agreed to do it.

......The NFL is not causing issues like police brutality. And thankfully neither is a lot of people's workplaces. So I don't really think it's the best place for people to heavily address these issues when they are conducting business.  I think that this whole anthem issue is divisive and destractive. It seems like a lot of people are talking about it during these protests more than they are racism, and police brutality. And I think that's a sign these anthems protests may not be really working.

I think that the best way for players to use the NFL for help with these issues is to meet with Roger Goodell and other executives to discuss getting support for them off the field. Maybe the NFL can sponsor some events to help people dealing with important issues. Players like Malcolm Jenkins are trying to do things like that.

.......

I dont blame Dez or any player or person for not kneeling or maybe simply not wanting to get involved or create a less than warm working environment for themselves.  I was just saying that Jerry Jones probably knows none of his key players are going to kneel (for whatever reason) and so he can say what he said and not really have back it up.  Could the owner of the Ravens or Seahawks say the same thing and not be challenged?

The NFL is certainly not the cause of our social issues.  These issues predate the very existence of the NFL.  What the NFL is providing (inadvertenty) is visibility.  What other weekly event is watched by more people?  None that I can think of.  And what good is a protest if nobody sees it? 

I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for Roger Goddell to do anything substantive. He and the 32 owners want no parts of anything that can be labeled as helping to combat police brutality or racial injustice.  And I'm not saying its because I think they are racist or even that they dont want to.  I just think the rhetoric from the most vocal fans (the ones who've been writing nasty letters about boycotting etc) probably lead them to think their bottom line might be affected if they engage in anything related to social issues.   And as Max said on First Take this morning, it is much easier for a business to alienate the minority (read: people of color/anyone who supports the protests) than it is to alienate the majority (read: white people/those who honestly think these protests are about the flag/racists).

[ganesh]

No one should kneel if they don't want to. That's part of the point of kneeling. 

I think the NFL would survive the so-called boycotts if they didn't take a stand on kneeling one way or the other. And I say so-called because I doubt people are quitting their fantasy teams with tons of money on the line. 

[raven]

8 hours ago, Jx223 said:

I think that the best way for players to use the NFL for help with these issues is to meet with Roger Goodell and other executives to discuss getting support for them off the field. Maybe the NFL can sponsor some events to help people dealing with important issues.

Some players and owners did meet with him on September 28.

I think some owners are willing to work with players but money will always be the bottom line.

5 hours ago, ganesh said:

Can they legally do that? I mean, is amending policy allowed in the CBA? This seems like a larger issue.

The Brady and Ezekiel (pending appeal) cases proved that the final arbiter in disputes about conduct detrimental to the league is Roger Goodell.  This is in the CBA so was agreed to by the NFLPA.  Goodell can rule against you, hear your appeal on that ruling, and rule again.  This is why the NFL kept the court case going against Brady when the suspension was first overturned; a precedent was in danger of being set against Goodell/NFL.  It is set now, though not in a way that favors the players.

Generally employers can set down whatever rules they wish as long as they don't violate any discrimination laws, and, absent a written agreement, can fire you as long as they don't violate said laws.  The NFL players of course have a union and CBA.  Now I think Goodell is an overpaid hack whose opinion blows with the wind and I believe he just received a new contract so his job is probably safe.

Text of Goodell's letter to the owners regarding the meeting.

[twoods]

Yep. People point at the decrease in viewers every year for NFL games, but it's gone down in every sport because of increase access to streaming services. Those idiots who are burning tickets and jerseys already bought them, so the NFL already has their money. Just stop showing the anthem prior to game on TV like they were doing in the past and people will eventually find something else to be "outraged" about. Since the owners are now involved, it's going to be a huge mess. These NFL players weren't distracting anyone from doing their jobs and certain people made it into a big deal. 

[DrSpaceman73]

I reiterate my extreme irritation that the kneeling issue goes on on and on.......

But in regard to it being some sort of big issue in any new CBA discussions, it just won't be.  The players union and the owners use the CBA to maximize money for each group and care little about any other issues. 

Player discipline, kneeling, player safety, these others things that get talked about, they end up being secondary or tertiary issues at best in the CBA.  If they spend time on those issues they have to give up something elsewhere, and that something would be in some form less money. 

[mojoween]

Christ.  The president needs to butt the fuck out of what the NFL is doing and let them handle it amongst themselves.  It doesn’t even AFFECT him.

If he would have stopped his stupid tweeting, the whole issue would have quieted down.

[FuriousStyles]

I think what's been said about Trump exacting a personal vendetta against the NFL is true.  He's such a petty child and he holds a grudge like none other.   

A part of me is happy that he's stirring ish up for the NFL and particularly the owners, because at least 7 or 8 of them gave upwards of $1 million to support his campaign efforts.  They deserve the backstabbing pig they paid for.  

[xaxat]

So I guess the woman who posted the video of the Dolphin O line coach snorting a "white powdery substance" is claiming that she did it to protest racial inequality?

Does she believe anyone will actually believe that pile? But hey, she's probably happy to get her fifteen minutes.

[Irlandesa]

10 hours ago, mojoween said:

Christ.  The president needs to butt the fuck out of what the NFL is doing and let them handle it amongst themselves.  It doesn’t even AFFECT him.

If he would have stopped his stupid tweeting, the whole issue would have quieted down.

I don't think this has been posted here yet but Eminem did a freestyle rap at the BET awards that takes on him on and his feud against the NFL.  Warning, it's political, intense and he's not a fan.  He posits a theory as to why he's engaging in this feud.

[MarkHB]

On 10/10/2017 at 9:10 PM, raven said:

The Brady and Ezekiel (pending appeal) cases proved that the final arbiter in disputes about conduct detrimental to the league is Roger Goodell.  This is in the CBA so was agreed to by the NFLPA.  Goodell can rule against you, hear your appeal on that ruling, and rule again.  This is why the NFL kept the court case going against Brady when the suspension was first overturned; a precedent was in danger of being set against Goodell/NFL.  It is set now, though not in a way that favors the players.

After the circuit court denied the en banc hearing, Brady's only recourse was, literally, to take it to the Supreme Court.  Given that the only real legal result would be that they would say "It's not our fault your contract sucks," (because it does suck IMHO, but not so much that it's an illegal contract) there was no point to taking it to that extreme.  If the new CBA talks get caught up in a combination of protest rights and allowing for a route of appeal independent of the Commissioner's office, I think we will be in for a long strike / lockout.

[merylinkid]

The 5th Circuit vacated the injunction and ordered the Texas case dismissed.    THe NFL promptly announced that Elliott's suspension begins immediately.   Except Cowboys are on a bye, so he is suspended 7 weeks for 6 games.   He comes back the day after Thanksgiving.   Yeah, Fox won't make any references at all on a national broadcast to the suspension or the court case.    The Commish should have thought for 2 seconds and realized the optics on this one.

[raven]

11 hours ago, MarkHB said:

After the circuit court denied the en banc hearing, Brady's only recourse was, literally, to take it to the Supreme Court.  Given that the only real legal result would be that they would say "It's not our fault your contract sucks," (because it does suck IMHO, but not so much that it's an illegal contract) there was no point to taking it to that extreme.  If the new CBA talks get caught up in a combination of protest rights and allowing for a route of appeal independent of the Commissioner's office, I think we will be in for a long strike / lockout.

Yes there was very little chance the SC would have heard the case at all, and with Brady's mom being sick and the season due to start, I wasn't surprised he dropped it.   Overall it ended up being a split decision, separate courts (Berman and one 2nd Circuit judge on one side, the other two 2nd Circuit judges on the other) - yeah, ultimately it came down the Court not wanting to interfere in a labor contract.  The CBA does spell out punishments for infractions, but Goodell insisted this one fell under "contract detrimental" IIRC, which gives him broad powers, and that may be what is happening with Ezekiel Elliott's case as well.  I'm not really following that one.  Still, with one decision essentially going the NFL's way, the courts will follow that precedent, which was the point the NFL wanted to make.  It's not about evidence or lack thereof, it's about who has the power.  The NFL doesn't want the players to routinely take them to court when Goodell brings the hammer down.

I wouldn't be surprised for the NFLPA to NOT address Article 46 since it comes up so rarely; I don't know if Tagliabue ever used it.  They should talk about getting rid of those god awful Thursday night games for one thing.  Player safety, sure, let's play another game 4 days after the last one.

I don't think the CBA is due to be renegotiated until 2020, giving them time to work on things.

[mojoween]

I’m watching baseball but have seen videos on Twitter and I have to say I really like Carolina’s color rush.

[Fukui San]

The story that Roger Goodell's Wife Uses Sock Puppet Social Media Accounts to Go After Critics of Her Husband is fucking perfect.

The detail that puts it over the top is that she's a former Fox news anchor.

And then that her twitter handle was @forargument.  Like a memo to herself to use the Twitter account reserved for getting into arguments online. Roger should check to see if there is a Twitter handle @foraffairs floating around anywhere.

[Moose135]

1 hour ago, mojoween said:

I’m watching baseball but have seen videos on Twitter and I have to say I really like Carolina’s color rush.

They look like the same Smurf suits they have worn in the past.

[twoods]

Some of those Cam throws were head scratching. When he dove into the end zone (or out of bounds) I swore he broke his left wrist because he fell hard on it. That was a gutsy, but dumb, play.

The rookie kicker Elliott is a beast. And those Eagles fans who booed poor Agholor on draft day last year better be eating shit now. He was a stud at USC and glad he's doing well in the NFL.