Bailey reinstated

[Legatron4]

I like cheese. Sorry, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I'm just glad to have Bailey back.

 

[-X-]

I like cheese. Sorry, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I'm just glad to have Bailey back.

lol. I get glazed over on long legal posts too.

 

[Legatron4]

lol. I get glazed over on long legal posts too.

Hahaha that's exactly how I felt when people started using words like, "arbitrary" and "leniency". It's like a different language.

 

[jrry32]

Then there would never be any change to the rules. How would you ever find a pocket of time where nobody would have a grievance to a rule change in the scenario you just laid out (having already served it)? You would literally have to have a 15 year period where nobody broke the (now old) rule before you could change it to a more lenient rule. And that's just never gonna happen.

No, not at all. You just don't retroactively apply rules to people that already have been punished.

 

[Mojo Ram]

Then there would never be any change to the rules. How would you ever find a pocket of time where nobody would have a grievance to a rule change in the scenario you just laid out (having already served it)? You would literally have to have a 15 year period where nobody broke the (now old) rule before you could change it to a more lenient rule. And that's just never gonna happen.

One week during the offseason. Similar to open enrollment for health benefits at the workplace. This way it's all laid out there and the lines aren't blurred.
Certainly not at any random time you feel like it. Lol.

 

[RamzFanz]

Special teams should benefit a lot.

 

[-X-]

No, not at all. You just don't retroactively apply rules to people that already have been punished.

Oh, okay. I see where we lost each other. I thought you were talking about people who had been punished and served their sentence already to completion. You're talking about players who are currently serving a sentence, and you feel they should just serve the original term without getting any leniency under the guidelines of the new rule. Like time served.

Well, tough shit.

 

[Mojo Ram]

Oh, okay. I see where we lost each other. I thought you were talking about people who had been punished and served their sentence already to completion. You're talking about players who are currently serving a sentence, and you feel they should just serve the original term without getting any leniency under the guidelines of the new rule. Like time served.

Well, tough crap.

Yes.

 

[AZRamsFan93]

Glad Stedman is back. Big addition, IMHO.

 

[-X-]

Yes.

I can see your (and jrry's) point. But I just can't seem to find the motivation to give a damn about this one.

 

[-X-]

That's the worst kind of argument though.
If the NFL decided blue and gold were horrible color combinations and outlawed them, we'd all be pissed too.

This is what they're doing, and it's a done deal.

 

[Mojo Ram]

I can see your (and jrry's) point. But I just can't seem to find the motivation to give a damn about this one.

 

[-X-]

That last sentence is not part of that gif, so I invalidate the gif entirely.

 

[-X-]

In the way you add a hypothetical that could never happen. Just a personal thing with me.

"If the NFL decided to change the substance policy and backdate it to September 19th - banning Quinn and pardoning Wilson - there would be uproar on this board."

is the equivalent of ...

"If Goodell outlawed animals as team names, everyone would be up in arms."

Like I said, it's just a pet peeve of mine - not a big deal. I like it when debates deal with the issue at hand instead of "what ifs." Which, by extension, makes me not a fan of an argument being posed that is intended to reveal someone else's hypocrisy by making them answer a hypothetical that can never happen. If that's not what you're doing, then my bad. That's just how it came across.

 

[-X-]

Don't put yourself out. I'll just bring it to you.

 

[Sum1]

No, not at all. You just don't retroactively apply rules to people that already have been punished.

You're neglecting to acknowledge a key component...this is all part of a negotiation by both sides. A major player in this whole thing is that the NFLPA thought the punishments being given out didn't fit the foul. They wanted the rules changed and part of that was the current players serving suspensions.

You are arguing that it should simply be future infractions that the rules change...the NFLPA wanted it to include current infractions. I don't understand why that is so damning? It's simply a negotiation where one side wants XYZ and the other wants ABC, it's all the letters in between that get sorted through.

I mean hell, you can negotiate with the IRS on back taxes for goodness sake.