Blue Bombers Forum
August 22, 2019, 08:05:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12
  Print  
Author Topic: Lawrence suspended...  (Read 5474 times)
blue newt
Full Member
***
Posts: 236



« Reply #45 on: June 20, 2019, 02:07:10 AM »

Actually Simoni is just sticking to his story - he claims it was accidental, no maliscous intent therefore 2 games is too much...CFLPA is defending their member and claiming that while the result was terrible it was not worthy of this punishment.   The court of public opinion (including other players and members) is clearly against Simoni so I may have thought the CFLPA would just let this one go but I guess not.

I understand that.  But, even if we pretend it wasn't an intentional head hunt, it doesn't release Simoni from responsibility.  Mistakes have consequences.  There's such a thing as negligence.  His hit is the textbook definition of a dangerous hit.  He even hit Powell the same way later in the same game (it just didn't get flagged).  It's exactly what the CFLPA should be lobbying *against*, not for.  I stand with the league on this one. 
Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7583


« Reply #46 on: June 20, 2019, 02:31:25 AM »

This whole situation is beyond ridiculous. The CFLPA clearly doesn?t care about players asafety as they shouldn?t have appealed it. I m with ambrosie on this, there has to be a shared responsibility on player s safety and the CFLPA doesn?t care about safety only their right to appeal. They have lost their way. Brutal. If this happened in the NHL and there was a clear intentional headshot, no way the nhlpa appeals it, they get it that this type of hit needs to be eliminated from the game. The CFLPA doesn?t get it, they re lost and that?s sad as it?s only the players that will suffer
Logged
ModAdmin
Administrator
*****
Posts: 10168


Reaves,Cameron,Riley,Walby - Blue Bomber Legends


« Reply #47 on: June 20, 2019, 03:24:40 AM »

Intentional or not, it was an illegal, was penalized and punishment assessed.  While I get it that the CFLPA represents the players but it does seem somewhat hypocritical for the CFLPA to say they are concerned about safety and follow up medical care where needed for players and yet want to contest this.
Logged

"You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one." - John Wooden
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3098


« Reply #48 on: June 20, 2019, 05:05:29 AM »

Wow, a rare day that basically everyone on the forum is in complete agreement.  And a rarer day still where the WPG forum is in agreement with the SSK forum!!  How Simoni and CFLPA can pick this hill to die on is beyond me.  Are they saying that there should never be any real punishment, that everything should be a slap on the wrist like Rose got?

I bet every team forum (except possibly HAM) is on the same page here.  So I wonder what HAM forums have to say?  If they aren't defending him either, then it would seem to be unanimous.  I don't know about you, but I'd have a hard time defending a Bomber who concussed a QB while sliding.

I think appealing only hurts Simoni.  And if he wins, it'll hurt him more.  People will really hate him.  If he said a real "sorry" and accepted the punishment, amost everyone would get over it, and it would be business as usual (except for ZC).  Now what team will want to hire SL if he ever leaves HAM?
Logged
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7505



« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2019, 12:54:26 PM »

Ambrosie is rightly painting the CFLPA as the bad guy who doesn't care about player safety. Most folks agree with him, but the CFLPA is just being consistent. They almost always go to bat for players who are losing game cheques. They went to bat for Hebert for the first 2 of his 3 head shots before they declined. They are going to bat for Lawrence on his first.

The appeal doesn't hurt anyone or relieve SL from responsibility. It's just part of the process.
Logged

Being right never gets old.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3642


« Reply #50 on: June 20, 2019, 02:12:45 PM »



The appeal doesn't hurt anyone or relieve SL from responsibility. It's just part of the process.

Agree with bolded part 100%.  Actually, I feel this latest statement from Ambrosie is both petulant and disingenuous. 

He knows full well that the grievance and arbitration process are part of the collective agreement, and that the union has a duty to represent all its members.  Ensuring Simoni gets due process is not endorsing his actions.

If the 2 game suspension is reasonable and correct within the context of both written rules and precedent, then it will be upheld by the arbitrator.  If the arbitrator reduces it, then maybe the CFL has to do some work to do in defining supplementary discipline process. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28476



« Reply #51 on: June 20, 2019, 02:28:11 PM »

An appeal should carry the potential of both a reduction and an increase in penalty.  Otherwise, every ruling will be appealed.  You have to give the arbiter the ability to increase teh penalty if he feels the offending party was not sanctioned appropriately, taking into account post penalty actions. 

Before the assesment of the penalty, Lawrence was apologetic and contrite.  Post assessment, he was not.  The fact that he does not think 2 game suspension is warranted for potentially ending a career though his actions (intentional or not), this fact needs to be part of the arbiter's decision.

The fact of the issue is that Lawrence hit a QB that had clearly surrendered himself.  He had ample time to pull up, and should not have initiated any contact with a helpless QB.  No excuses about "heat of the moment" or "continuing the play" can stand here.  QB surrendered with a slide, and that ends the play.  Lawrence continued and injured Collaros.

There were people calling for a 6 game suspension, other that wanted him suspended until Collaros returns.  Either of those outcomes, while harsh, would signal the league's desire to end this practice.

I think that is the appeal goes though, the arbiter should increase the penalty to a 4 game suspension, and thus end anyone risking an appeal without an actual grievance.   

If there is a reduction of the suspension, then the league and CFLPA have lost all ability to say player safety is any concern of either group.

Now, should a backup Olineman be activated from the PR next SSK/HAM game, and should he accidentally fall on Simoni's knee after a "Jumbo Team" play... well...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
rubanski
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1657


« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2019, 02:39:58 PM »

Anyone here who claims that if he/she was in SL shoes - that you wouldn't appeal - is liar or a fool.

He's losing 11% of his income this year. It's a precedent setting long suspension for a 1st time offender on an issue like this.

The CFLPA collectively bargained for the right to appeal any decision by the league that causes it's members to lose salary. The CFLPA has an obligation to honour SL's right to appeal this decision.

I thought it was a little low brow for Ambosie to publicly slam the CFLPA for doing their job. If they refused to honour SL's request/right to appeal they'd be putting themselves at jeopardy for legal action from SL towards them.
Logged
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 13173



« Reply #53 on: June 20, 2019, 02:50:49 PM »

Anyone here who claims that if he/she was in SL shoes - that you wouldn't appeal - is liar or a fool.

He's losing 11% of his income this year. It's a precedent setting long suspension for a 1st time offender on an issue like this.

The CFLPA collectively bargained for the right to appeal any decision by the league that causes it's members to lose salary. The CFLPA has an obligation to honour SL's right to appeal this decision.

I thought it was a little low brow for Ambosie to publicly slam the CFLPA for doing their job. If they refused to honour SL's request/right to appeal they'd be putting themselves at jeopardy for legal action from SL towards them.

The CFL is attempting to set a precedent with SL. And that's likely a good thing. They need to set limits and follow through if we want the players at adapt.

But you can't set a new precedent without push back. SL has never been suspended before and they're jumping to two games. That, I think, is the point of the appeal.

Hopefully, the suspension is able to be maintained, and SL wont get into too many games before this is resolved.
Logged

My wife is amazing!
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28476



« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2019, 02:52:57 PM »

Anyone here who claims that if he/she was in SL shoes - that you wouldn't appeal - is liar or a fool.

He's losing 11% of his income this year. It's a precedent setting long suspension for a 1st time offender on an issue like this.

The CFLPA collectively bargained for the right to appeal any decision by the league that causes it's members to lose salary. The CFLPA has an obligation to honour SL's right to appeal this decision.

I thought it was a little low brow for Ambosie to publicly slam the CFLPA for doing their job. If they refused to honour SL's request/right to appeal they'd be putting themselves at jeopardy for legal action from SL towards them.

Of course he is appealing and we all would with the present outcome of appeals (almost certainly it gets reduced just for asking).  

Now, if they included the possibility that the suspension would be increased on appeal, does that change whether you would risk an appeal?  

They looked at the violation, and assessed a penalty.  Not sure what the appeal process is for, really, other than drag things out and cost everyone money.  I get the idea of an appeal, like a coaches challenge, if something was missed or new information comes to light.  But nothing new has happened here, and while there is no precedent for a 2 game suspension for attacking the head of a defenceless player, this is the first suspension of the new CBA, and in the new atmosphere  of enhanced player safety.  So THIS is the precedent.  

The only new information is the fact that Lawrence doesn't want to lose that much money, he wants to lose less.  That's it.  Purely about money. He hasn't become more apologetic, in fact, he has basically slapped Collaros in the face again by appealing, and making the CFLPA defend his actions in potentially ending Collaros' career.  Reducing his suspension means that all the players and CFLPA care about is money.  The CFLPA's "player safety initiative" becomes a punch line.
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3642


« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2019, 02:53:11 PM »

An appeal should carry the potential of both a reduction and an increase in penalty.  Otherwise, every ruling will be appealed.  You have to give the arbiter the ability to increase teh penalty if he feels the offending party was not sanctioned appropriately, taking into account post penalty actions. 

Before the assesment of the penalty, Lawrence was apologetic and contrite.  Post assessment, he was not.  The fact that he does not think 2 game suspension is warranted for potentially ending a career though his actions (intentional or not), this fact needs to be part of the arbiter's decision.

The fact of the issue is that Lawrence hit a QB that had clearly surrendered himself.  He had ample time to pull up, and should not have initiated any contact with a helpless QB.  No excuses about "heat of the moment" or "continuing the play" can stand here.  QB surrendered with a slide, and that ends the play.  Lawrence continued and injured Collaros.

There were people calling for a 6 game suspension, other that wanted him suspended until Collaros returns.  Either of those outcomes, while harsh, would signal the league's desire to end this practice.

I think that is the appeal goes though, the arbiter should increase the penalty to a 4 game suspension, and thus end anyone risking an appeal without an actual grievance.   

If there is a reduction of the suspension, then the league and CFLPA have lost all ability to say player safety is any concern of either group.

Now, should a backup Olineman be activated from the PR next SSK/HAM game, and should he accidentally fall on Simoni's knee after a "Jumbo Team" play... well...


"blah, blah, hyperbole, blah, missing the point, fantasy outcomes, etc."
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28476



« Reply #56 on: June 20, 2019, 02:58:16 PM »


"blah, blah, hyperbole, blah, missing the point, fantasy outcomes, etc."

Really?  Please give me an intelligent response rebutting my point. 

This is a new CBA, this is a new atmosphere of player safety, and this was an egregious violation with career ending potential, and it could have even been worse.  Lawrence is lucky Collaros may have a potential of playing again, he could have been much worse.

2 games is light in my opinion, given the CFL and CFLPA's commitment to improving player safety.  Giving a player a 2 game suspension and the ability to appeal it to 1 game or even less just does not jive with the seriousness of the situation.  I can't see how anyone can dispute that fact.

This was a late hit on a vulnerable player by a player who has a history of taking liberties in this way, but hasn't had a suspension previously.

 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
BBRT
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1274

If winning isn't everything,why do they keep score


« Reply #57 on: June 20, 2019, 03:06:58 PM »

Really?  Please give me an intelligent response rebutting my point. 

This is a new CBA, this is a new atmosphere of player safety, and this was an egregious violation with career ending potential, and it could have even been worse.  Lawrence is lucky Collaros may have a potential of playing again, he could have been much worse.

2 games is light in my opinion, given the CFL and CFLPA's commitment to improving player safety.  Giving a player a 2 game suspension and the ability to appeal it to 1 game or even less just does not jive with the seriousness of the situation.  I can't see how anyone can dispute that fact.

This was a late hit on a vulnerable player by a player who has a history of taking liberties in this way, but hasn't had a suspension previously.

 
Hi Aards - I can understand why the CFLPA would file an appeal. It really has nothing to do with SL or the hit or the seriousness of the situation. The CFLPA is a union and every union agreement that I have been involved with negotiating (and that includes the Teamsters in the good ol USA) has an appeal process. It is just due process and an option that any union legal entity would invoke regardless of the situation. I have been through a number of these sitting on management side over the years when I was a CFO in the US. I think it will follow due process and at the end of the day he will be suspended for 2 games. However as a union member he is entitled to due process based on the collective agreement in place.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2019, 03:31:17 PM by BBRT » Logged
rubanski
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1657


« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2019, 03:27:59 PM »

This is a new CBA, this is a new atmosphere of player safety, and this was an egregious violation with career ending potential, and it could have even been worse.  Lawrence is lucky Collaros may have a potential of playing again, he could have been much worse.

2 games is light in my opinion, given the CFL and CFLPA's commitment to improving player safety.  Giving a player a 2 game suspension and the ability to appeal it to 1 game or even less just does not jive with the seriousness of the situation.  I can't see how anyone can dispute that fact.

This was a late hit on a vulnerable player by a player who has a history of taking liberties in this way, but hasn't had a suspension previously.

You can't say he has a history of taking liberties. You're not backing that up with anything.
Fact Check He's never been suspended.

The only reason this is potentially "career ending" is because Collaros shouldn't be playing freaking football. That's not SL's problem. It's a Zach problem.

You saying 2 games is "light" isn't based on reality. It's a massive suspension by CFL standards. This isn't a slap on the wrist. It's a big step up in head shot punishment. Especially for a player with a clean record.


Of course he is appealing and we all would with the present outcome of appeals (almost certainly it gets reduced just for asking).  

Now, if they included the possibility that the suspension would be increased on appeal, does that change whether you would risk an appeal?  

They looked at the violation, and assessed a penalty.  Not sure what the appeal process is for, really, other than drag things out and cost everyone money.  I get the idea of an appeal, like a coaches challenge, if something was missed or new information comes to light.  But nothing new has happened here, and while there is no precedent for a 2 game suspension for attacking the head of a defenceless player, this is the first suspension of the new CBA, and in the new atmosphere  of enhanced player safety.  So THIS is the precedent.  

The only new information is the fact that Lawrence doesn't want to lose that much money, he wants to lose less.  That's it.  Purely about money. He hasn't become more apologetic, in fact, he has basically slapped Collaros in the face again by appealing, and making the CFLPA defend his actions in potentially ending Collaros' career.  Reducing his suspension means that all the players and CFLPA care about is money.  The CFLPA's "player safety initiative" becomes a punch line.

In what universe does a penalty or suspension ever get increased in appeal? The governing body puts forth a precedent setting harsh punishment, and you're telling us in a just world, this suspension might be increased. Huh?

The right to an appeal is about rights. Not money, not insults to Zach, not slaps in the faces. It's a right that SL has. Players have fought hard for their rights. This is one of them.

Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28476



« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2019, 03:57:38 PM »

Hi Aards - I can understand why the CFLPA would file an appeal. It really has nothing to do with SL or the hit or the seriousness of the situation. The CFLPA is a union and every union agreement that I have been involved with negotiating (and that includes the Teamsters in the good ol USA) has an appeal process. It is just due process and an option that any union legal entity would invoke regardless of the situation. I have been through a number of these sitting on management side over the years when I was a CFO in the US. I think it will follow due process and at the end of the day he will be suspended for 2 games. However as a union member he is entitled to due process based on the collective agreement in place.

Yes.  He has a right to appeal.  But why is he appealing?  Was the penalty undeserved?  Too harsh?  Unreasonable?  This is a new era, a new CBA, and a new commitment to player safety.  The CFLPA is conflicted in this as they fought for this CBA on the idea of improving player safety, which this infraction is a blatant abuse of, and in total contravention of the entire platform the CFLPA stood on in making this CBA.  This CBA was not about money, not about the right to make a living, but all about the players safety, and the league protecting those players with spotters, independent doctors, etc.

My point is that invoking his "due process" means that he does not believe he did something worthy of this suspension.  He is not contrite and remorseful, and that is the whole issue.  He portrayed himself as such at the time of the incident, and after the game, and his 2 game suspension was based on that.  To appeal, he has to take the stand that what he did wasn't that wrong, and the penalty was unreasonable (although we do not have a precedent *under the current CBA and player safety commitment*.  This suspension sets the tone and precedent.  The CFLPA should have counseled Lawrence to sit down and shut up for the good of the CFLPA and the league.  The team should have counseled him the same. 

If he gets a reduction, then the CFLPA is complicit in undermining player safety.  The league won't be able to give out suspensions of 2 games or longer if he wins this appeal, precedent will have been set.  It is important for player safety that this gets upheld.  And yes, an appeal, where there is now information, should be able to yield an increased penalty, show me where it says it can't.  THAT would stop appeals, and show that both the CFL and CFLPA are truly committed to the players health, and not just their bank account. 

You can't say he has a history of taking liberties. You're not backing that up with anything.
Fact Check He's never been suspended.

The only reason this is potentially "career ending" is because Collaros shouldn't be playing freaking football. That's not SL's problem. It's a Zach problem.

You saying 2 games is "light" isn't based on reality. It's a massive suspension by CFL standards. This isn't a slap on the wrist. It's a big step up in head shot punishment. Especially for a player with a clean record.


In what universe does a penalty or suspension ever get increased in appeal? The governing body puts forth a precedent setting harsh punishment, and you're telling us in a just world, this suspension might be increased. Huh?

The right to an appeal is about rights. Not money, not insults to Zach, not slaps in the faces. It's a right that SL has. Players have fought hard for their rights. This is one of them.

Never said Lawrence had been suspended, but he may have been had the present player safety climate been in effect.  He has a history of UR and RTP fould, and is known as a dirty player.  No one is surprised he did what he did. 

What is the basis for the appeal?  Yes, he has the right to appeal.  But what is the basis for that appeal?  Is he claiming he did nothing wrong?  Or that it was only a little bit wrong?  That he is remorseful, and won't do it again?  He knew suspension was possible, he might not have thought 2 games, but still, he knew supplemental discipline was kicking up this year. 

If he gets a reduction, everyone loses.  Player safety becomes a joke.

If it is upheld (or increased due to lack of remorse and his obvious disregard for the rules regarding player safety that he flagrantly defied), then we have a precedent that is appropriate heading forward.  If it is increased, we then stop the appeal process, except where there is an actual reason to appeal.

Yes, he has the right to appeal.  And he also has the ability to take his punishment like a man, and respect the CFLPA and CFL's efforts to improve player safety.
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!