8th Circuit court rules in favor of NFL in Peterson case

[Superman]

Peterson will be subject to a fine equal to 6 games pay, as imposed in the league's original decision. 

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17218215/nfl-wins-appeal-case-adrian-peterson-minnesota-vikings

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/08/151438P.pdf

 

Quote

 

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that an NFL arbitrator acted within his rights by upholding Goodell's six-game suspension of Peterson in 2014. That suspension was handed down under the personal conduct policy that the league toughened up following a brutal act of caught-on-video domestic violence committed by Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice.

 

The 8th Circuit ruling overrode the decision issued Feb. 26, 2015, by U.S. District Judge David Doty that found NFL arbitrator Harold Henderson overreached his authority in handling the NFL Players Association's appeal on behalf of Peterson.

 

 

I just skimmed through the ruling quickly, and it reads like a pretty definitive statement that the Commissioner can act within his discretion to determine discipline under the Player Conduct Policy, as collectively bargained. Their ruling says that the Commissioner is not held to previous levels of player discipline as strict precedent (in other words, if you got suspended 4 games for an offense, that doesn't mean I can only be suspended 4 games for the same offense). It's a pretty comprehensive smackdown of the NFLPA's long standing argument against the Commissioner's collectively bargained authority to administer discipline at his discretion, and it agrees with the 2nd Circuit ruling in the Brady case.

 

Their ruling also states that it is not the government's position to rule on the merits of the discipline, the league's fact-finding, or whether the player accused is actually guilty. The goverment is only to decide whether the Commissioner acted within the bounds of the authority given him by the CBA.

 

If the NFLPA was hoping that this panel would provide standing for a SCOTUS appeal of the Brady case, I think this dashes their hopes against the rocks. The two rulings coincide.

 

Long story short, player discipline under the Player Conduct Policy is at the discretion of Commissioner and his appointed arbitrator(s). 

[Cynjin]

52 minutes ago, Superman said:

Peterson will be subject to a fine equal to 6 games pay, as imposed in the league's original decision. 

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17218215/nfl-wins-appeal-case-adrian-peterson-minnesota-vikings

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/08/151438P.pdf

 

 

I just skimmed through the ruling quickly, and it reads like a pretty definitive statement that the Commissioner can act within his discretion to determine discipline under the Player Conduct Policy, as collectively bargained. Their ruling says that the Commissioner is not held to previous levels of player discipline as strict precedent (in other words, if you got suspended 4 games for an offense, that doesn't mean I can only be suspended 4 games for the same offense). It's a pretty comprehensive smackdown of the NFLPA's long standing argument against the Commissioner's collectively bargained authority to administer discipline at his discretion, and it agrees with the 8th Circuit ruling in the Brady case.

 

Their ruling also states that it is not the government's position to rule on the merits of the discipline, the league's fact-finding, or whether the player accused is actually guilty. The goverment is only to decide whether the Commissioner acted within the bounds of the authority given him by the CBA.

 

If the NFLPA was hoping that this panel would provide standing for a SCOTUS appeal of the Brady case, I think this dashes their hopes against the rocks. The two rulings coincide.

 

Long story short, player discipline under the Player Conduct Policy is at the discretion of Commissioner and his appointed arbitrator(s). 

 

Very interesting.  The question now is, what is the NFLPA willing to give up in order to get the owners to agree to some type of arbitration? 

[Superman]

51 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Very interesting.  The question now is, what is the NFLPA willing to give up in order to get the owners to agree to some type of arbitration? 

 

Why would the owners agree to take arbitration away from the Commissioner, whose primary responsibility is to look out for the best interests of the league? I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with everything that any Commissioner does, but if there's one person who is supposed to all about the league, it's the Commissioner. 

 

Even when a separate arbitrator is appointed -- like the Peterson case or the Bounty case -- if the NFLPA doesn't like the decision, they take it to courts. These two most recent rulings really undermine their arguments, but I don't think they'll stop trying this avenue, no matter who the arbitrator is.

 

I think the real question is how far is the NFLPA willing to go in trying to wrestle this authority away from the Commissioner? What kind of stand are the players willing to take? How much money are they willing to walk away from? What kind of work stoppage are they willing to endure? Because without an extreme move from the players, I don't see the owners agreeing to any system that doesn't place final discretion in the hands of the Commissioner. It's always been that way.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I can see the NFL concede appeals in arbitration to a tribunal agreed to upon by the consensus of the NFL and NFLPA (an NFL appointee, an NFLPA appointee, and a jointly agreed upon 3rd appointee) for something of value to the owners... IE: less pre-season games, along with more regular season games or something of that ilk.

 

I thought the 8th would rule in favor of NFL, and really felt so once the 2nd circuit made their decision(s).

 

The ability for the player(s) to lawyer up and run to the Federal courts at perceive unfair penalties just dropped precipitously.  As long as the NFL/Goodell operates without gross fraud or Bias, it will stick and courts will get quire angry seeing lawsuits unless real fraud or bias can be demonstrated.

 

I feel a CBA negotiated tribunal will end those Fed court cases altogether, for all intents and purposes.

[jvan1973]

The next CBA will be a lengthy ordeal

[Cynjin]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Why would the owners agree to take arbitration away from the Commissioner, whose primary responsibility is to look out for the best interests of the league? I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with everything that any Commissioner does, but if there's one person who is supposed to all about the league, it's the Commissioner. 

 

Even when a separate arbitrator is appointed -- like the Peterson case or the Bounty case -- if the NFLPA doesn't like the decision, they take it to courts. These two most recent rulings really undermine their arguments, but I don't think they'll stop trying this avenue, no matter who the arbitrator is.

 

I think the real question is how far is the NFLPA willing to go in trying to wrestle this authority away from the Commissioner? What kind of stand are the players willing to take? How much money are they willing to walk away from? What kind of work stoppage are they willing to endure? Because without an extreme move from the players, I don't see the owners agreeing to any system that doesn't place final discretion in the hands of the Commissioner. It's always been that way.

 

I didn't mean to imply that the owners would want to agree to a arbitration procedure, probably binding arbitration, they probably like the way it is now, a lot.  My question is more, how much is the NFLPA willing to give up during negotiations of the next CBA in order to get some of the power away from the Commissioner?  I would think that the vast majority of the players are not willing to give up much at all.  After all, it is a very small percentage of players that are ever affected.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Cynjin said:

 

I didn't mean to imply that the owners would want to agree to a arbitration procedure, probably binding arbitration, they probably like the way it is now, a lot.  My question is more, how much is the NFLPA willing to give up during negotiations of the next CBA in order to get some of the power away from the Commissioner?  I would think that the vast majority of the players are not willing to give up much at all.  After all, it is a very small percentage of players that are ever affected.

 

I agree all around.