Quote:
Originally Posted by biffle
By everything I've seen and read, there was absolutely nothing written that made it outside the rules. And I don't care if it's collectively bargained. You still can't go back and punish someone two years later for playing within the rules. I mean, I hate the Patriots, but if the NFL went back now and said "You know what? That Tuck rule was bad. We're going to eliminate it retroactively and take away your Lombardi Trophy" people would be understandably incensed, and it wouldn't stand.
And again, the league essentially paid off the union to sign off on this, so their approval of this means less than nothing.
|
I do think the Redskins have a number of viable defenses here, not the least of which is simply pointing out: "who are you guys to do this? Mind your own business!" I just don't see the litigation route as one of those viable options. Much like Al Davis couldn't have sued the league because the Tuck Rule was dumb. Well, he could have sued but it would have been thrown out.
Ultimately though, this seems like it will come down to how hard each side is willing to fight for/against the sanctions and what was previously in writing. The Redskins certainly didn't break any rules -- at least not any rules that would void the 2010 contract restructurings -- but they are still responsible for those deals if the NFL is going to decide that all contracts that broke the Rule of 30 (or whatever) in 2010 have to be paid back on the back end.
But like I said, if the NFL is going to fight hard enough, they'll find that as soon as they set an actual standard, there will be members on the NFL side who will be liable for penalty. The unfairness of the decision is the biggest issue that could keep the Redskins fighting a decision that ultimately isn't going to hurt them that much in the long run.