NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league was aware of the allegations in the Atlanta incident at...

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league was aware of the allegations in the Atlanta incident at the time it suspended Marshall, prior to the start of this season. He added that Marshall could face more disciplinary action from the league, depending on the outcome of the case.

"We have been aware of these potential charges," Aiello said. "We will continue to monitor the case and review it under our policy as appropriate."

ESPN - Marshall charged with misdemeanor battery in Georgia from March incident - NFL

Something we'll need to keep our eyes on....

over 3 years ago John Bena 11 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Not going to happen.

No way the League piles on for a charge that was already known to them before they laid down the last santction. I’ll bet the League spokesman gave a “diplomatic, rehearsed” kind of answer without knowing the details.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Sep 18, 2008 6:20 PM MDT reply actions

The only case where I could see an added penalty is if Marshall claimed the charge was of a very low nature and the actual charge ends up being significantly higher. In that case, the league could claim that their reduction in his suspension was based on a false understanding of the situation. But even with that, you’re probably not looking at more than one game.

The motivation for the league to do something like that is to encourage future cases to be forthright. They don’t want anybody thinking they can get a reduction by downplaying the severity of pending charges. Other than that, I do tend to agree with you. I don’t think it’s a concern.

by David Hooper on Sep 18, 2008 6:30 PM MDT up reply actions

possibly, but

I think that if it is still only a misdameanor charge, there won’y be any surprises that would be substantially more serious than what the League already knew.

My question is “who waits six months to file misdameanor charges?”
Sound like more of a hack job than anything to help his psyco ex build momentum for a law suite.

"If Denver beats us, I'll walk back to Detroit" - Alex Karras

by Denver Diehard on Sep 18, 2008 9:33 PM MDT up reply actions

i agree

Plus if I was Marshall I would fight these charges.

Love is a razor and I have walked the line on that silver blade

by broncfanstuckinsd on Sep 19, 2008 11:35 AM MDT up reply actions

Let's hope..

…you’re right, and let’s hope Brandon keeps to the straight and narrow.

If there's gonna be a collision, you better start it. Larry Csonka..

by bradley on Sep 18, 2008 6:27 PM MDT reply actions

There is no way they can punish Brandon

For the same thing twice. IIRC from my sixth grade civics class that is called Double Jeopardy.

I still think that in the end it will come to light that his ex is simply a crazy gold digger. But domestic cases are so difficult and messy because the extreme emotion, and except in the most extreme of cases the fact that no one is right and no one is wrong, and both have a share of the fault, and both probably did / said something untoward. It is annoying that usually only the man faces consequences in these situation, but that is the world we live in.

Go M's

by OBF on Sep 19, 2008 9:45 AM MDT reply actions

NFL can do whatever they want. They are not a democracy.

But I agree that they won’t punish BMarsh twice.

If God is not a Bronco fan, then WHY are sunsets Blue and Orange? - Jon Tollerud 5/22/08

by Tim Lynch on Sep 19, 2008 9:58 AM MDT up reply actions

They aren't a democracy,

they are a for profit company. As a fan base we need to express our misgivings regarding the potentially poor judgement that they may employ in this situation. I am not the guy who typically buys a jersey, but I may be purchasing a #15 soon, and depending on how this pans out I may get a custom name so it says F U GOODELL on the back. And that is coming from a guy who said Brandon needed the suspension (a statement I stand by).
The Double Jeopardy comparison makes sense in light of the fact that Goodell has decided to rush to judgement on cases before the courts can pass judgement. I actually have no problem with the rush to judgement, but I do have a problem with them wanting to be able to rush ahead regardless of court proceedings and then come back and bust you again because the courts find you guilty. And I can hear it already, ‘they can run their business how they please,’ but I can react to the way they run their business as well. For them to decide that double jeopardy is A-OK in their book is bogus. If they want to base penalties on court proceedings, shouldn’t they make a habit of waiting for the court proceedings to finalize before they punish players?

"It's the first time that I've probably ever seen a 260 pound back run into a free safety and go flat on his back, I mean it was exciting." ~John Elway

by jibbons on Sep 19, 2008 11:08 AM MDT up reply actions

Agree an disagree

I agree that there should be no double jeopardy and that they could very well shoot themselves in the foot for double suspensions, HOWEVER, I think someone else said it on here, if when Brandon and Darth Goodell met in August with his rap sheet in hand, and he explained all the situations and it turns out he is charged with MORE than he told Goodell, than my small mind would think that is kind of the same as purgery. If you tell the commish something you had better not get caught with more baggage than he originally thought you had.

" He goes against Champ everyday." -Jay Cutler

Davis to the Hall!

by Jon Tollerud on Sep 19, 2008 11:34 AM MDT up reply actions

Yeah, good point

I guess I am running my mouth on the assumption that Marshall and Steinberg have been as forthright as they appear to have been.

"It's the first time that I've probably ever seen a 260 pound back run into a free safety and go flat on his back, I mean it was exciting." ~John Elway

by jibbons on Sep 19, 2008 11:49 AM MDT up reply actions