DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
This is a very fundamental and crushing blow to the concept of "conduct detrimental" as Goodell and, I presume, the league would like it to be understood. To me, there are at least two consequences of this aspect of Berman's decision -- (1) It really demonstrates the NFL's hubris and highlights was reasonable neutral people have been saying all along, that they wen't completely batshit crazy in this case and cut off their nose to spite their face. All they've done is create precedent that strikes to the very core of what Sheriff Roger has been selling and what seems to be his single most important issue. The NFLPA, for the moment, has neutered him. Whether the NFL will find some way to impose new notice in a way that restores some of the commissioner's authority the way he wants it, without having to collectively bargain, is going to be a fascinating question and thing to watch. At least, unless CA2 reverses. (2) This portion of Berman's decision makes it unfathomable to me that the NFL could decline to appeal.
Agreed. I think this is portion of the ruling is critical, as it highlights the huge chasm between how each side interpreted the CBA:
"[A]n applicable specific provision within the Player Policies is better calculated to provide notice to a player than a general concept such as "conduct detrimental." See In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 761 F.3d 303,313 (2d Cir. 2014) cert. denied sub nom. Giddens v. Barclays Capital Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2048 (2015) ("To the extent that there appears to be conflict between these provisions, the specific governs the general."); John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 717 F.2d 664, 670 n.8 (2d Cir. 1983) ("Where the parties have particularized the terms of a contract an apparently inconsistent general statement to a different effect must yield.")."
Goodell views "conduct detrimental" as a catch-all that allows him to trump up the penalties for other offenses that are clearly defined. Under that interpretation, a player could never truly be on notice of the penalties for particular conduct, because Goodell could always choose between following the on-point provision or using the catch-all option. The fact that this point was contested, and that a federal judge had to spell it out, is mind-boggling.