another way, relatively few NFL players commit personal conduct policy

Before the Stanley Cup Final began, Chicago Blackhawks head coach Joel Quenneville decided to split up the dynamic duo of Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane against the Boston Bruins. Neither player had a point in Chicagos 4-3 triple overtime victory in Game 1. Kane assisted on the Blackhawks lone goal in the Game 2 loss. And Game 3 was a shutout loss. So Toews and Kane have combined for one assist in three games of the championship series, in which the Blackhawks are facing a 2-1 deficit. Is it time to get back to basics? Should the Blackhawks reunite Toews and Kane? If so, who should play on the left side? In the regular season, Kane led the team in scoring with 55 points, followed closely by Toews at 48. Both players shared the team lead in goals with 23. Currently, Toews is centering a line with Marian Hossa, who missed Game 3 due to injury, and rookie Brandon Saad. Kane is playing on a line with Patrick Sharp and Michal Handzus. Neither line appears to be showing much offensive spark, especially in the last two games with the Blackhawks scoring just one goal on Tuukka Rask. Another power outage in Game 4 could result in Quennevilles crew heading home facing elimination on Saturday night. So it seems like an easy decision to put your two best players on the ice at the same time to maximize your offensive output. But doing so would give the Bruins the opportunity to utilize the imposing Zdeno Chara against the undisputed top line in every situation. If Chara and defensive partner Dennis Seidenberg are successful in neutralizing Toews and Kane, the Blackhawks would be left with a weaker second line that would be required to take on a bigger role. Should Toews and Kane be put back together, who should join them on the left side? Saad has only five points in the playoffs so far, including a goal in Game 1. Sharp is tied for the team lead in playoff scoring with 15 points, including the lone goal in Game 2. Bryan Bickell was the Hawks most consistent player coming into the Final but his ice time has gone down considerably in each game - it was less than 12 minutes in Game 3. Having said that, he would bring a size element that Toews and Kane may require to somewhat offset Charas physicality. Should the Blackhawks stay the course and keep Toews and Kane apart in hopes that one of their lines will start producing? Or should Quenneville put all his eggs in one basket and take his chances against Chara? And who should be the third egg on the line? As always, its Your! Call. Lightning Jerseys From China . Datsyuk will miss Tuesdays game against New Jersey and could be sidelined longer, while Cleary will likely miss at least the next three games. Its been an injury-plagued season for Datsyuk, who has suited up for just 39 games. Steven Stamkos Jersey . Instead of dwelling on the negative, Oates focused on what was good about the clubs recent play. It worked. http://www.cheaplightningjerseyschina.com/brayden-point-jersey/ . Tomas Berdych and Radek Stepanek defeated Nenad Zimonjic and Ilija Bozoljac 6-2, 6-4, 7-6 (4) on the indoor hard-court at Belgrade Arena. The victory improved the Czech pairs impressive cup doubles record to 14-1. Youth Lightning Jerseys . 31, the CFL club announced Monday. The team also has yet to decide on the future of Doug Berry, who began the season as a consultant to the head coach but took over the offensive co-ordinators duties in July. Ondrej Palat Jersey . The Brazilian goalkeeper signed a loan deal with the Major League Soccer club on Friday as he looks to get playing time ahead of this summers World Cup in his home country. Last Thursday, a federal appellate court issued another decision in NFL commissioner Roger Goodells favor and against the NFL Players Association.This time it was in Adrian Petersons case. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Goodell was properly acting within his powers when he suspended the Minnesota Vikings running back, under the domestic violence policy set in August 2014, for conduct that occurred in May 2014.Heres a Q&A breaking down what it all means:What was the case about?It starts with Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement, which allows the NFL to hold players accountable for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football. This empowered Goodell to create the personal conduct policy.In August 2014, following the Ray Rice controversy, Goodell circulated a memorandum to teams, outlining enhanced penalties for personal conduct policy violations involving domestic violence. These penalties increased the two-week unpaid suspension to six weeks for a first domestic violence offense.This case was about whether Goodell could retroactively apply those enhanced penalties to Peterson for the domestic violence he committed four months prior to the rules inception.?How did the events play out?Two weeks after Goodell issued the memorandum, a Texas grand jury indicted Peterson on Sept. 11, 2014. The running back was charged with felony injury to a child, his then-4-year-old son, during a May incident.In November, Peterson pleaded no contest to the lesser charge of misdemeanor reckless assault. Goodell suspended Peterson indefinitely and fined him six games pay based on the protocol outlined in the August 2014 domestic violence memorandum.An arbitrator Goodell chose affirmed Petersons penalty, but a federal lower court reversed it. The NFL appealed that decision to a higher court.What did the appellate court decide?A three-judge panel on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the arbitrator, holding that Goodell could apply the enhanced domestic violence penalties to Peterson.?The appellate court did not think Goodells memorandum created a new penalty that could have been applied retroactively. Rather, the appellate court concluded that the August 2014 memorandum just further explained the then-existing personal conduct policy, effectively enhancing it.The court also said Goodell may issue whatever punishment he believes is necessary under Article 46 and the personal conduct policy because neither limit the commissioners authority. In other words, the League might change its discipline without changing its policy, the court said.What does the ruling mean for the NFL?The ruling means Goodell has the power to increase or decrease punishment as he sees fit. The commissioner isnt limited to prior discipline -- i.e., Goodell doesnt have to issue the same punishment to a player that he issued in the past. Goodell has tthe power under Article 46 and the personal conduct policy to punish players to whatever extent he believes is necessary to deter the bad behavior.dddddddddddd.?Following the Deflategate decision against Tom Brady, this ruling just reaffirms the expansive reach of Goodells powers when it comes to issuing punishments under the CBA.?What does the ruling mean for Adrian Peterson?The ruling doesnt impact Petersons ability to play. It requires only that he forfeit his game checks for the six games Goodell suspended him in November 2014. Thats approximately $4.1 million of Petersons $11.75 million salary. (After Week 2 of the 2014 season, Peterson was placed on the commissioners exempt list, so although he was barred from all team activities until his child-abuse case was resolved, he still received his salary. It was after he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge that he was suspended, without pay, for the final six games of 2014.)League sources told ESPNs Ed Werder that Peterson had already paid the NFL three game checks, leaving less than $2.1 million to be paid.What does the ruling mean for the NFLPA and NFL players?The ruling is another hit to the NFLPA. The back-to-back appellate court losses could deter the NFLPA from pursuing challenges to Goodells authority in the future.?With this 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, coupled with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Deflategate decision, the precedent has been set that Goodell has broad authority under Article 46. The decisions give the NFLPA little room to raise a viable argument undermining that authority.That does not mean there wont be more discipline fights; in a different case, with different facts, the NFLPA might find it worthwhile to raise a challenge. Its the associations duty to defend the leagues players. ?How can the NFLPA change the breadth of Goodells authority??The NFLPA can limit Goodells powers in Article 46 only by negotiating new terms in the CBA.?The CBA can be renegotiated at the end of the 2020 NFL season. That is, unless the NFL and NFLPA collectively agree to change the CBA before that time. This is unlikely, largely because Article 46 isnt an issue that impacts a lot of NFL players. Said another way, relatively few NFL players commit personal conduct policy violations.And fewer are getting into trouble, period. As the Washington Post reported last week, there has been a 40 percent drop in the number of NFL player arrested in the first six months of this year as compared to the same period last year. That means the NFLPA might not make it a priority to negotiate a change in Goodells powers under Article 46 now and possibly in the future.?Adrienne Lawrence is a legal analyst who practiced law from 2008 to 2015 before joining ESPN in August 2015.?Follow her on Twitter @AdrienneESPN. ' ' '