As it turns out, a Hall of Fame running back helped resolve the dispute regarding whether a receiver who presumably would like to be in the Hall of Fame will miss fewer than six games if he’s traded to a new team.
But former Jets and Redskins chain-mover John Riggins didn’t show up and tell anyone to “lighten up, Sandy baby.” A full-season holdout he staged during his playing career provided the precedent for forging a compromise.
As Thursday’s hearing-that-never-happened approached, the battle lines had been drawn. The NFL believed that the placement of receiver Vincent Jackson on the roster exempt list would follow him to a new team, requiring him to miss three games after his three-game suspension for violation of the substance-abuse policy. The NFLPA believed that, if Jackson were traded, he would not be on the roster exempt list once he joins a new roster.
But there was another issue on which the two sides focused. The NFL believed that Jackson could not “report” to the Chargers -- or any other team -- and trigger the commencement of his three-game stay on the roster exempt list while serving a three-game suspension under the substance-abuse policy. The NFLPA believed that Jackson could “report,” given that players suspended under the substance-abuse policy may show up to the facility for meetings and other activities, but not practice.
Enter Riggins.
In 1980, Riggins wanted a new contract from the Redskins. He showed up for training camp, participated in a team meal, and left before practices started. The Redskins sent him a five-day letter, warning him that if he didn’t return in (you guessed it) five days, they could shut him down for the entire season. Riggins didn’t return, and the Redskins shelved him for the year.
Riggins and the union fought the issue, arguing that because he hadn’t officially “reported” he couldn’t be issued a five-day letter after leaving camp. An arbitrator ruled that showing up for the meal constituted “reporting” for camp.
Thirty years later, we’re told that this precedent helped get Jackson’s ultimate absence reduced to four games, if he is traded by Wednesday. Since Riggins’ arrival for a plate of food was enough to constitute “reporting,” Jackson’s appearance at the team facility during his suspension also would be “reporting.” So if, in theory, Jackson had “reported” to a new team after Week One, he would have missed only the next three games under the rules of the roster exempt list.
Thus, his total absence if traded will be four games.
But there are a couple of twists here. Even if Jackson isn’t traded until after Week Two (which appears to be the more likely scenario), he’ll still miss only the next two games. Also, the settlement doesn’t apply to the Chargers; even if he “reports” today, he’ll still miss six games.
That said, it doesn’t matter as to the Chargers because he won’t be “reporting” to the Chargers until they give him the kind of contract he wants. And it’s been clear for months that, for whatever reason, they won’t.
So now the question becomes whether a deal can be worked out between the Chargers and another team, and between another team and Jackson, by Wednesday.
It would be fitting if he ends up with the Redskins, given their role in setting the precedent that could grease the skids for Jackson’s exit from San Diego.
