Zeke Elliott TRO granted

[Broncofan]

5 hours ago, Forge said:

I don't think that the players will have to give up much of anything. It's in everyone's best interest to overhaul the disciplinary  structure right now. Sure, ownership will hem and haw maybe a little, but it won't be big enough to get something that large out of the players and I think that will largely be for show. I do think that they could get something minor, but they may not even do that. Even ownership has to acknowledge that the optics of the NFL discipline policy and procedures has been a disaster. Brady gets 4 games for deflategate, Zeke gets 6 games for something that he may or may not have done, but Josh Brown got one game? It's all over the place. And we've had two of the most powerful owners, in Kraft and now Jones, feel the negative brunt of this structure. And after all, its all fun and games until it starts affecting them. They should want to have this changed as well, it's really in everyone's best interest and its not going to be something that affects the bottom line or really impacts them financially (outside of a couple of new people on the payroll). There is nothing wrong with having another individual, or tribunal or whatever you want to have in whatever structure, take this power from Goodell allowing him to focus on other aspects of the sport. 

The history of unions getting concessions from ownership strongly suggests it always costs in some form or another.   You are absolutely correct from the outside the process clearly needs an overhaul.  The issue is how strongly the ownership and NFLPA feel it's a priority.  

There are so many issues they face impasses on and frankly there's a large contingent of players who likely look at Elliott / Rice / Josh Brown as undeserving of priority of negotiations (short sighted yes but it's human nature).  When the CBA negotiations really take center stage profit sharing of non-TV $, better pension, getting more guaranteed $ in deals (or reducing # years of min-wage before FA, better solution than the franchise tag for retaining star players), player safety, addressing the drug policy flaws (the whole approved supplement list, eliminating or keeping weed on list) affects far more players.   I don't see that this will be seen as high priority by the NFLPA membership  as the rest TBH unless we see more cases where ppl think they are threatened.  

 

[jebrick]

8 hours ago, Forge said:

No. The most similar case would be bradys, and their ruling in that case wasn't that they couldn't overrule the CBA, it was, 

“We hold that (NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell) properly exercised his broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement and that his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness,”

Thats different. In this case, they could decide Goodell didn't do that. And that decision wasn't unanimous, it had a dissenting opinion

This becomes labor law where the only things the judge should be looking at is if the NFL followed the CBA.  As someone else said earlier in the thread, negotiate a better CBA.

 

Also remember that the NFL is not finding guilt in the domestic violence.  They are saying Elliot had actions which make the NFL look bad.

 

I think Elliot can stretch this out but will lose in the end.

[bucsfan333]

37 minutes ago, jebrick said:

I think Elliot can stretch this out but will lose in the end.

Definitely seems like he's delaying the inevitable.

[brooks1957]

I have not read the entirety of this thread, but the headline makes no sense to me. Maybe I think with too much common sense, but -

Elliott was investigated ad nauseum.

Because of that investigation, Elliott was given a 6 game suspension.

Zeke did not like that - so he appealed the suspension.

The league looked into the matter a SECOND time - and ultimately upheld their original suspension.

So, ELLIOTT PLAYS SUNDAY?? What am I missing?

[Nova]

1 hour ago, jebrick said:

This becomes labor law where the only things the judge should be looking at is if the NFL followed the CBA.  As someone else said earlier in the thread, negotiate a better CBA.

 

Also remember that the NFL is not finding guilt in the domestic violence.  They are saying Elliot had actions which make the NFL look bad.

 

I think Elliot can stretch this out but will lose in the end.

I'm pretty sure the NFL is finding guilt in domestic violence; hence the 6 game suspension.

I think that Elliott will lose this battle in the end because the NFL seems to have extremely broad powers under the CBA, but I'm starting to wonder if there are other avenues Zeke's representation can take.

Because while he has been sentenced to 6 games under the DV policy, the results of the investigation are not any more conclusive or satisfactory than other DV episodes that have resulted in the softer punishment of 'conduct detrimental to the league'.

 

[HDsportsfan]

13 minutes ago, brooks1957 said:

I have not read the entirety of this thread, but the headline makes no sense to me. Maybe I think with too much common sense, but -

Elliott was investigated ad nauseum.

Because of that investigation, Elliott was given a 6 game suspension.

Zeke did not like that - so he appealed the suspension.

The league looked into the matter a SECOND time - and ultimately upheld their original suspension.

So, ELLIOTT PLAYS SUNDAY?? What am I missing?

Henderson didn't release his ruling by the close of business. So I believe, basically by default, because of that he gets to play Sunday. You know, the league wants to be fair.

[brooks1957]

Gotcha. Thanks!

[kyle21121]

O/U 45 carries week 1?

[TheKillerNacho]

3 minutes ago, kyle21121 said:

O/U 45 carries week 1?

Under.

[Dirk Gently]

9 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Well, it absolutely does 'apply' insofar as the precedence is significant. This goes for the goes for the granting of the TRO as well I would think. Since an appeals court already weighed in on this I would suspect there is less of a desire to grant a TRO this time around. The litigation are, essentially, already happened.

I've seen multiple opinions that the Texas location significantly weakens the NFL for this reason.

[kyle21121]

2 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Under.

I did set the number laughably high but I feel it's gonna be a Zeke show week one. Hes gonna get the ball a lot. 

[jebrick]

11 minutes ago, Dirk Gently said:

I've seen multiple opinions that the Texas location significantly weakens the NFL for this reason.

But labor law is very well established for this.  The Union agreed to the arbitration.  If the arbiter followed the guidelines in the CBA then even a stupid ruling by the arbiter is held up.  Elliot may get a lower court judge that is sympathetic ( like with Brady) but precedence favors the NFL( if they followed the CBA). 

[fretgod99]

14 hours ago, Forge said:

Because he may have a legitimate case. If the judge thinks there's even a small chance he's in the right, they'll grant it

That's not the standard used. I'm not claiming he will or won't get a TRO or temporary injunction, but the standard isn't "Is there a small chance you'll win on the merits". The standard is, can you show a likelihood (more likely than not*) of winning on the merits and if the TRO and subsequent temporary injunction are not entered, will you be irreparably harmed. The second prong of that is pretty straight forward (missing games most likely would qualify as irreparably harmed). The first is the issue. There are actually a couple other considerations as well, but it probably isn't really worth diving into because the likelihood of winning on the merits would be the deciding factor most likely.

 

* - edit, mistyped here. Meant "not more likely than not" then got tied into that in subsequent replies. Apologies for adding to the confusion.

[fretgod99]

 

10 hours ago, incognito_man said:

10 hours ago, Dirk Gently said:

We'll see. Didn't read the article (probably will tomorrow) but the sections you cited put a lot of weight on the precedent from Brady... which does not apply in this court.

 

And, of course, Brady himself *was* granted the restraining order and injunction, just ultimately lost the court battle.

Well, it absolutely does 'apply' insofar as the precedence is significant. This goes for the goes for the granting of the TRO as well I would think. Since an appeals court already weighed in on this I would suspect there is less of a desire to grant a TRO this time around. The litigation are, essentially, already happened.

This is what tends to make a TRO/Temporary Injunction less likely here (though again, I'm not going to claim which way this will turn out). Brady lost on the merits and the basic argument appears to be relatively similar. If the cases are legally viewed to be pretty similar, it's a hard argument for Elliot to make that he's more likely than not to win on the merits. Still, it's going to be interesting from a legal perspective to see how this all shakes out.

[fretgod99]

10 hours ago, MightyMouse07 said:

Yeah I was going to say according to my understanding, the precedent doesn't necessarily apply to this district where an appeal would ultimately be heard. 

 

Meaning they dont don't have to follow that precedent. 

They're not bound by it, but the decision would be highly advisory.