The NFL has filed its “appeal and an emergency motion for a stay” on the Ezekiel Elliott ruling, reports Mike Garafolo of NFL.com (via Twitter). The reporter notes that the NFL is specifically asking for that stay by September 26th, at which time (if successful) the running back would presumably serve his suspension. The league’s request is below (via Garafolo on Twitter):

“To minimize disruptive uncertainty, the NFL requests a stay ruling ideally by September 19, 2017 (when Week 3 practices begin), but no later than September 26, 2017 (Week 4). The NFL stands ready to brief the appeal with whatever degree of expedition this Court deems appropriate. But the process of remedying the district court’s massive overreach should begin as promptly as possible by staying its unprecedented and indefensible order.”

Let’s take a look at some other notes on the Elliott ordeal:

• Predictably, Elliott’s team released a statement following the NFL’s decision to file an appeal (via Ian Rapoport on Twitter): “The NFL’s latest legal maneuvering appears to be indicative of a league with an agenda: Trying to navigate a public relations crisis rather than focus on fairness and fact finding. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the NFL believes it can write its own rules and will stop at nothing to further its agenda of enforcing its unfounded assertions regarding Mr. Elliott. Most recently this would include the NFL seeking an expedited hearing on staying the preliminary injunction by frivolously arguing that the NFL is somehow ‘irreparably harmed’ by Elliott playing while the Courts decide whether the investigation and appeal was fundamentally unfair. Mr. Elliott and his team will continue to zealously oppose any of the NFL’s court filings.”
• Sports Illustrated’s Michael McCann notes that Judge Amos Mazzant’s decisions aren’t usually reversed. Since be became a federal judge in 2009, 19 of his decisions have been appealed…with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversing those decisions only twice. Of course, as the writer notes, the same could be said for Judge Richard Berman, whose decision in favor of quarterback Tom Brady was reversed.
• While the NFL is hoping to have the process wrapped up relatively quickly, precedent says that that might not be the case. McCann notes that the Brady appeal took seven months, while Adrian Peterson‘s appeal took 17 months. On the flip side, the previous appeals “challenged a federal district judge vacating an arbitration award,” while the current appeal is in regards to “a preliminary injunction.” Ultimately, the timing of the decision could play a significant role in whether Elliott will be suspended this season.

The judge involved in Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott‘s legal case has requested the NFLPA and the NFL offer filings by 5pm Wednesday and Friday, respectively, according to Tom Peliserro of USA Today (Twitter link), which means it’s a “virtual certainty” Elliott plays against the Broncos on Sunday. As was the case in Week 1, the NFL has taken the position that a delay in a ruling means Elliott will be available for the week in which a decision is handed down.

Here’s more on the Elliott saga:

• The “expedited” appeals process in the Elliott case will be similar to that of the Tom Brady/Deflategate timeline, per Ian Rapoport of NFL.com (Twitter link), meaning arguments will be held in September, followed by a hearing in January and a decision in April. That is, of course, a court grants a stay in the case, something the NFL is requesting. League spokesman Joe Lockhart indicated Elliott won’t be placed on the Commissioner’s Exempt list, tweets Rapoport.
• Elliott and the NFL aren’t likely to reach a settlement that would absolve the second-year back of domestic violence responsibility, reports Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk. Given that Elliott has been unwilling to accept any blame, there is “no middle ground” on which the two parties can land. Instead, Elliott is expected to be either banned for six games or zero games.
• The NFL did not ask Elliott’s accuser, Tiffany Thompson, to testify under oath, as Florio writes in a separate piece. While the league doesn’t hold subpoena power, Thompson did agree to be interviewed by the NFL on six occasions, meaning she may have been willing to offer testimony. However, the league reportedly is wary of placing domestic violence victims in “awkward and uncomfortable” situations, per Florio.

We learned yesterday that Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott had been granted a temporary restraining order against the NFL. The player’s six-game suspension is now on hold, and he’ll be allowed to play the upcoming season as the case is resolved. Ultimately, the judge found that Elliott “did not receive a fundamentally fair hearing, necessitating the Court grant the request.”

An NFL spokesman released a statement following the decision (via NFL.com’s Mike Garafolo on Twitter):

“We strongly believe that the investigation and evidence supported the Commissioner’s decision and that the process was meticulous and fair throughout. We will review the decision in greater detail and discuss next steps with counsel, both in the district court and federal court of appeals.” 

Meanwhile, the NFLPA released a statement, citing the league office’s lack of integrity (via Charean Williams of ProFootballTalk.com):

“Commissioner discipline will continue to be a distraction from our game for one reason: because NFL owners have refused to collectively bargain a fair and transparent process that exists in other sports. This ‘imposed’ system remains problematic for players and the game, but as the honest and honorable testimony of a few NFL employees recently revealed, it also demonstrates the continued lack of integrity within their own League office.”

Let’s take a look at some other reactions regarding the Elliott decision…

• There were several factors that went into Judge Amos L. Mazzant III’s decision, writes Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com. For starters, the judge had concerns about the credibility of Tiffany Thompson, and he believed Elliott’s team should have been allowed to cross-examine her. Furthermore, the question marks surrounding “the opinions and conclusions of NFL Director of Investigations Kia Roberts” should have resulted in testimony from commissioner Roger Goodell, which did not happen. Finally, the judge cited “[f]undamental unfairness” that had plagued the case since the beginning.
• Florio also points out a footnote in the ruling, noting that Judge Mazzant could still dismiss the entire case based on the fact that it was filed prematurely. The NFL is still required to file essential paperwork, and the judge could subsequently decide to “punt” the case in “deference to the lawsuit the NFL filed in New York.” In this case, Elliott would once again be forced to get an injunction so he can continue to play. However, Florio believes this is unlikely, as the judge will presumably keep “control of the case in order to ensure that the case is processed with the benefit of his conclusion.”
• Elliott’s attorneys released a statement following the decision (via ESPN’s Adam Schefter on Twitter): “We just learned of the Honorable Amos Mazzant’s decision to grant Mr. Elliott’s request for a preliminary injunction staying the NFL’s six-game suspension. We are very pleased that Mr. Elliott will finally be given the opportunity to have an impartial decision-maker carefully examine the NFL’s misconduct. This is just the beginning of the unveiling of the NFL’s mishandling as it relates to Mr. Elliott’s suspension. As the Court noted, the question of whether Mr. Elliott received a fundamentally fair hearing answered… “he did not”. We agree.”