HUSTON – Late last week, when details of the NFL’s position to suspend the Deshon Watson investigation began to spread privately among the parties involved, a source in the middle of everything suggested that there was a single piece of information the league wanted publicly expired. It was a native piece that would act as a public relations shield if Watson’s hearing before an independent disciplinary arbitrator did not develop in the way the league office thought it should.
In the event that this happened, the source believed that the NFL wanted the public to know what it had insisted on: a minimum suspension of one year.
“I think there’s a reason this is spreading because that’s what the NFL wants,” the source told Yahoo Sports. “What if the referee looks at everything and comes back with 10 games eliminated? If everyone knows that the league wants a one-year suspension, that gives the NFL the opportunity to simply say, “We were looking for a tougher penalty, but we’re also not going to undermine the collective bargaining process and this referee in their first big case, either.”
Less than 24 hours after the allegation was made on Friday, numerous media outlets reported that Watson’s disciplinary hearing would take place on Tuesday. And the Wall Street Journal reported that the NFL is indeed looking for an indefinite suspension that will last at least a year, at which point Watson can apply for reinstatement. Shortly afterwards, numerous publications confirmed the report.
If the league wanted this expectation of a one-year suspension to be in the public mind, it received the message.
Who is the arbitrator Sue Robinson?
What does this mean for independent referee Sue Robinson, who will now be under the microscope when it comes to sorting out what the league has found in its investigation?
Unlike previous years, when the NFL and NFL Players’ Association was constantly fighting behind the scenes over whether the league’s arbitration process was fair, Robinson’s position was the culmination of the latest collective agreement, scattering the old position between the league and the union. Robinson was not only chosen jointly by the NFL and the union to act as a disciplinary referee, but will be paid for his service by both. And she came with quite unquestioning authority after winning a federal judge under the administration of George HW Bush in 1991. She eventually completed her federal appointment by 2017, overlapping five presidential administrations.
The story continues
She is now ordering Watson’s NFL investigation, which lasted nearly 16 months. When the hearings began on Tuesday, two sources familiar with the process told Yahoo Sports that the league was expected to take a rather narrow approach as to whether Watson had violated the league’s personal conduct policy, although the scope still seemed is in some debate.
A source told Yahoo Sports that the NFL has focused on six women who accuse Watson of either sexual misconduct or sexual violence in their interactions with him. A second source said the number of women was five.
Both sources agreed with the NFL’s main approach: League investigators wanted to increase their insistence on removing women based on the most evidence available. This includes digital data in the form of text messages, personal messages on social media, payments and other modern forms of evidence, which may also include conversations between prosecutors and others immediately after their alleged meetings with former Texans in Houston and Cleveland Browns’ current quarterback. .
Deshon Watson faces a disciplinary hearing, with the NFL starting Tuesday. (Ken Blaze-USA TODAY Sports)
Why the NFL may not appeal Robinson’s decision if it’s less than a 1-year ban on Watson
Robinson will also hear what the legal aces are when it comes to lawyers dealing with each side of the case, between the NFL’s special prosecutor for investigations, Lisa Friel, and the often-leaning NFLPA heavyweight striker, Jeffrey Kessler. who has extensive experience in fighting the league in labor and disciplinary negotiations.
Sources on both sides of the hearing seem to agree that there are three aspects that will be key once everything is settled:
-
Where will Robinson go about the prospects of removing Watson after she has weighed all the evidence presented to her by NFL investigators? Will he find the cases credible? Will the alleged incidents meet the standard for one or more breaches of the personal conduct policy? And if so, what is the appropriate stop for one or more violations?
-
Is there any precedent that Robinson thinks is applicable in this case? While the number of charges against Watson suggests that this is unprecedented territory for a single player, the league’s insistence on a one-year ban is not. Last year, the NFL suspended Calvin Ridley for at least a calendar year after a gambling investigation. And in recent years, the league has also removed players and coaches for various violations following investigations (see, for example, the Saints Prize scandal). What, if any, precedent comes into play for violations and lengths of stops?
-
Perhaps most importantly for the NFL, will the league essentially want to overturn Robinson’s decision on appeal if it goes in a direction that does not overlap with the NFL’s penalty offer?
The last question is being talked about behind the scenes more than some may realize. Robinson is a new and supposedly fairer addition to the league’s disciplinary process. It is jointly agreed and jointly appointed to be the voice that ultimately finds the appropriate and fair middle ground. But she is not the last arbiter if someone is not happy with her decision. Each party may ultimately appeal Robinson’s decision regarding the duration of the suspension, leaving the final decision to Goodell or to whom he could appoint an appeal.
If this sounds like something that is ultimately in the hands of the league, it is because it is – if the league wants to take it this way.
If Robinson disagrees with the NFL in this case and imposes a suspension for less than a year, will the NFL appeal? An appeal that will go to Goodell or his appointee?
As one source said Sunday: “Honestly, I think the NFL will do what Robinson decides, because I don’t think they want to step on her in her first big decision. It would be bad for the NFL to look out and say that this co-elected federal judge with a long record was wrong in his first crack, then appeal to Roger [Goodell] or whomever he chooses, for what would essentially be a unilateral final decision on discipline. If that happens, then what’s the point of having a disciplinary officer that two parties choose? What good is it if the NFL comes out and says that the federal judge they helped elect is somehow incompetent right away?
While this question may sound deep in the weeds of the Watson case, it may play a bigger role in what is unfolding this week than people realize. It may also be the reason the NFL wanted the one-year suspension proposal to go public.
Now that this is the case, the league has the opportunity to accept Robinson’s final decision, but also to tell the public that he still believes he deserves the harsher punishment. After all, this may be the middle ground the NFL can live with.
Add Comment