The players have voted overwhelmingly - 706-22 - to give the NHLPA the power of dissolution by way of a disclaimer of interest. Weve come to a bit of a crossroads. The NHLPA must now decide what it wants to do next. There are options, but with each option comes risk. Whats the NHLPAs first option? Dissolve and sue. The NHLPA could file a disclaimer of interest and dissolve the union. Once dissolved, the players could file an antitrust lawsuit requesting a court to declare the lockout unlawful, while also seeking compensation for lost wages. Since antitrust law provides for something called treble damages, which means triple damages, the players could get billions of dollars in compensation if this ever went to trial. Heres the math – the combined salaries of about 700 players (which is about a billion dollars) multiplied by 3. Thats a lot of money - and its precisely that threat of antitrust litigation together with potentially catastrophic monetary damages that gains the players leverage in CBA talks. Would the players ask a court to immediately lift the lockout? First things first. There is an important distinction that needs to be made. The players can ask the court right off the bat to have the lockout lifted pending resolution of the matter at trial years from now. So the players would be arguing that its an emergency that the lockout should be lifted right away, and given that its an emergency they cant wait for a court to rule on the legality of the lockout at trial in a few years. So getting the lockout lifted temporarily within a month after filing the lawsuit is emergency relief. That should be distinguished from a court ultimately finding that the lockout is unlawful at trial years from now – whether the lockout is or isnt still in place. So theres emergency relief in the form of getting the lockout lifted right away, and there is ultimate relief years from now at trial. Two different things. Now to answer your question in typical lawyer fashion – the players may or may not ask for the lockout to be lifted ASAP. Weve seen both scenarios play out recently. During the NFL lockout in 2011, the NFLPA asked the court for that emergency request to lift the lockout. In response, the lower court lifted the lockout, thereby re-opening the NFL for business. However, the NFL appealed the case, and the Appeals Court put the lockout back in place ruling that a judge in these circumstances didnt have the power to lift a lockout. That same court, though, was not saying that the lockout was legal. They were just saying at this really early stage of the court action they didnt have the authority to lift the lockout on an emergency basis. So that means it was still possible the court at trial could rule the lockout was ultimately unlawful, in which case the NFL could have owed the players billions of dollars in lost wages. The NBA players took a different position in their own lawsuit during the 2011 lockout. Sensitive to the NFL Appeals Court decision keeping the lockout in place, the players decided not to ask the court to temporarily lift the lockout on an emergency basis. Instead, they asked the court to declare the lockout illegal much later at trial, while also seeking billions of dollars in lost wages. So why didnt the NBA players ask to have the lockout lifted on an emergency basis? Given the NFL decision, there was a risk that the court would have said that it couldnt lift the lockout on an emergency basis, thereby leaving it in place indefinitely. For the NBA players, that would have meant losing leverage. So what are you saying? The NHL players may not ask a court to temporarily lift the lockout on an emergency basis, and instead just ask for billions of dollars should the lockout be found illegal at trial. However, its still possible they could make the request for emergency relief. Wait. You keep talking about trial. Would this ever get to trial? No with a sprinkle of unlikely. To get this case to trial would take years. That just doesnt make a whole lot of sense for the NHL or its players. The league wants to get this settled in the short term and doesnt want to be embroiled in a court battle for years. How does the NHL lawsuit in New York factor in? The NHL has already filed a lawsuit in the state of New York, which historically is more sympathetic to owners than players. By being the first to file a lawsuit, it now becomes more difficult for the players to file a lawsuit about the same stuff in another state. Seeing this second lawsuit, a judge may say something like this: "Hey theres already a lawsuit about this somewhere else, and it was filed there first, so get out of my court". So thats why the NHL filed first – to secure home ice advantage and make it tougher for the players to file their own lawsuit in a more player friendly court – like one in California. So option 1 is to dissolve then sue. Whats option 2? The NHLPA could elect not to dissolve itself. Fehr & Company could hope that the mere threat of dissolving the union with a view to initiating antitrust litigation is enough to extract leverage in these negotiations. Which option is best? Nothing applies pressure like a lawsuit. So from the standpoint of the players, Option 1 will be looked at very carefully. The bottom line, though, is the NHLPA needs to figure out what is best to get a deal done – and much of that will depend on how close the sides are to cutting a deal. Eric, in your last article I told you I hated lawyers. Just to let you know, nothing has changed on that front. I understand. My mom hasnt talked to me since I was called to the Bar. Something about majoring in Snakeism. Is there a drop dead deadline for the NHLPA to dissolve itself? No. Youve been hearing a lot that the NHLPA must dissolve by January 2. Thats true – well sort of. The player vote that just passed authorizes the NHLPA to dissolve by January 2. However, if the NHLPA doesnt dissolve by then, it isnt barred from doing so at a later date. As well, the players could also vote to decertify the NHLPA, which is the players voting to no longer have the Union represent them (a disclaimer is the opposite – the union walking away from the players). NHL players, like all employees, have a protected right to choose whether to have a union represent them. Employees not only have a basic right to bargain collectively through a union, they also have a corresponding right not to. The right to choose not to have a union and not to engage in collective bargaining exists before as well as after a collective bargaining relationship forms. This is fundamental to labor law. The NHL is arguing that a disclaimer is just a sham designed to gain the players leverage. Does that hold water? A disclaimer of interest must be in good faith. A unions mere statement that its no longer representing the players may not be enough to discharge that good faith obligation. You need to look at the surrounding circumstances, including the conduct of the parties after dissolution, to determine if the union has really stopped representing the players. As was said in a case back in 1958 (which incidentally is when Elvis Presley was inducted into the U.S. Army), a disclaimer of interest is conducted in bad faith when its "obviously employed only as a measure of momentary expedience, or strategy in bargaining." Thats what the NHL is arguing – the only reason the NHLPA would dissolve itself would be to gain leverage, and once they get what they want, they will just re-assemble the union. There is no real intention on the part of the NHLPA to abandon its players. On top of that, the NHL will argue that NHLPA executives will still be directing things behind the scenes. This is a reasonable argument, and expect it to get some traction. Of late, we have seen the NFLPA and NBPA employ this disclaimer strategy, only to re-assemble later. A judge may not be happy with what is emerging as a new industry tactic in sport labor disputes and rule accordingly. Eric, you have ended a few of your sentences with prepositions – are you embarrassed? No, not really. I may, however, feel bad after. If the NHLPA is dissolved, can Donald Fehr still negotiate on behalf of the players? The idea behind the disclaimer is that the NHLPA is saying its no longer representing the players. So Fehr cant on the one hand say the NHLPA is out of the picture, and on the other hand lead negotiations. If he did, the NHLs sham argument would be that much easier to make. So if the players sue, expect outside lawyers to take over negotiations. Thats what happened in the NBA lawsuit. How does this settle and get hockey back on the ice? While CBA talks have spilled from the boardroom into the courtroom, lawsuits and judges wont get this settled. A deal will get done with the sides continuing to negotiate with a view to finding common areas of compromise. There is of course one thing that will drive settlement – a deadline. Pressure will mount on both sides as we near the NHLs deadline to cancel the season. The hope for hockey fans is that the sides dont collapse under the pressure and the season is lost like it was in 2005. Given that there remain areas of compromise, this case has a profile for settlement. So it would be a surprise if we dont see NHL hockey this season. However, and as Im sure you would agree, these talks have been filled with surprises. Eric Macramalla is TSNs Legal Analyst and can be heard each week on TSN Radio 1050. You can follow him on Twitter @EricOnSportslaw. Hakeem Olajuwon Jersey . -- Not long after Arizona knocked off Florida for its biggest win of the season, coach Sean Miller told his team not to get too high, to keep their focus. Chandler Parsons Jersey . The once-feared defence has surrendered nearly 35 points per game while forging a 2-2 record to start the season. The club is coming off a 39-24 loss in Hamilton on Saturday. http://www.shoptherockets.com/ . According to the Globe and Mail, Heatley filed a lawsuit against Stacey McAlpine and McAlpines parents last week in Calgary. Jeremy Lin Jersey . LOUIS -- Robert Griffin III had his moments. James Harden Jersey . -- San Francisco 49ers kicker David Akers bounced a ball off the crossbar and through the uprights from 63 yards just before halftime, tying an NFL record in Sundays game against the Green Bay Packers at Lambeau Field. ATLANTA -- Alabama is heading back to the national championship game -- by a mere 5 yards. AJ McCarron threw a 45-yard touchdown pass to Amari Cooper with 3:15 remaining, and the No. 2 Crimson Tide barely held off No. 3 Georgia 32-28 in a Southeastern Conference title game for the ages Saturday. After an apparent game-clinching interception by Alabama was overturned on a video review, Georgias Aaron Murray completed a 15-yard pass to Arthur Lynch, a 23-yarder to Tavarres King and a 26-yarder to Lynch, who was hauled down at the Alabama 8 as the clock continued to run. The Bulldogs were out of timeouts. Instead of spiking the ball and gathering themselves, the Bulldog snapped the ball with 9 seconds to go. Murray attempted a pass into the corner but it was deflected at the line, winding up in the arms of Chris Conley out in the right flats. Surprised to get the ball, he slipped down at the 5. Georgia couldnt get off another play. Alabama celebrated as confetti fell from the Georgia Dome roof. The Bulldogs collapsed on the field, stunned they had come so close to knocking off the team that has won two of the last three national titles. The Tide will get a chance to make it three out of four when they face top-ranked Notre Dame for the BCS crown on Jan. 7 in Miami. "Im ready to have heart attack here," Alabama coach Nick Saban said. For the Bulldogs (11-2), the consolation prize will likely be a spot in the Capital One Bowl, though they certainly looked like a team deserving of a BCS bid. Georgia coach Mark Richt said his team had the play it wanted at the end, but Alabama ruined it by getting a hand on the ball. And if it had fallen incomplete instead of going to Conley, who instinctively caught it, the Bulldogs could have tried another play. "I told the guys I was disappointed, but Im not disappointed in them," Richt said. "Theyre warriors. We had a chance at the end." In a back-and-forth second half that looked nothing like a game in the defensive-minded SEC, the Crimson Tide trailed 21-10 after Alec Ogletree returned a blocked field goal for a touchdown in the third quarter. Alabama rallied behind a punishing run game, finishing with 350 yards on the ground, an SEC championship game record. Eddie Lacy -- the games MVP -- rumbled for 181 yards on 20 carries, including two TDs. Freshman T.J. Yeldon added 153 yards on 25 carries, also scoring a TD. But the Tide won it through the air. With Georgia stacking the line, McCarron fooled the Bulldogs with play action and delivered a perfectly thrown pass to Cooper, who beat Damian Swann in single coverage down the left side. Georgia played like a champion, too. Using up their timeouts and forcing a punt, the Bulldogs got the ball back at their 15 with 1:16 remaining. Alabama broke into a celebration when a pass down the middle for Conley was deflected and Dee Milliner appeared to make a diving interception. But the replay showed the ball hit the ground, so Murray and the Georgia offence trotted back on the field for their last gasp. And what a gasp it was. Just not quite enough. Todd Gurley led Georgia with 122 yards rushing, including a couple of TDs. Murray was 18 of 33 for 265 yards with one touchdown and one interception. McCarron was 12 of 21 for 162 yards with an interception, just his third of the season. After a defensive slugfest in the first half, the final two quarters were nothing but run-and-gun. Alabama running. Georgia gunning. Trailing 10-7, Georgia took the kickoff to start the second half and marched down the field for a go-ahead touchdown..ddddddddddddGurley ran it seven times, capped by leg-churning, 3-yard drive up the middle to make it 14-10. Alabama looked like it was about to answer, holding the ball for more than 5 1-2 minutes, before the drive stalled. Cade Foster came on for a 50-yard field-goal attempt, but his low kick was swatted down by Cornelius Washington. Ogletree scooped up the bouncing ball and returned it 55 yards for a touchdown. Suddenly, the Bulldogs led 21-10. But the Tide wasnt about to go away that easy. Yeldon broke off a 31-yard run, Swann was called interference on a throw down the middle, and Yeldon powered in from the 10. He ran it again for the 2-point conversion, pulling Alabama to 21-18. Georgia went three-and-out, and the ground assault resumed. Lacy barrelled over right guard for 32 yards. Yeldon got it down to the 1. Lacy returned for the first snap of the fourth period, bulling over to put Alabama ahead 25-21. The Tides momentum lasted about 2 minutes. Murray found King down the middle for a 45-yard completion and Gurley finished off the lightning-quick possession with a 10-yard touchdown run up the middle. After the clock had finally run out on Georgia, Richt made one last pitch for a BCS bid. "Do I think were worthy of a BCS bowl?" he said. "Yes I do." The Bulldogs even got props from Saban. "It would be a crying shame if Georgia doesnt get to go to a BCS bowl game," the Alabama coach said. "They played a tremendous game out there. That was a great football game, by both teams. It came right down to the last play." Alabama has a chance for the double championship it was denied a year ago. The 2011 version of the Tide didnt even win the SEC West after losing to LSU in Tuscaloosa, but got a rematch with the SEC champion Tigers in the BCS title game. In the do-over, Alabama romped to a 21-0 win -- clearly the nations best team, but still hearing complaints it didnt deserve a second chance. Now, the Tide heads to Miami with a title already in hand. Georgia, looking to make up for a 42-10 loss to LSU in last years SEC title game, struck first after Richt gambled on a fake punt from the Alabama 36. Lynch, the up back, took a direct snap and lofted a wobbly but accurate pass over the middle to cornerback Sanders Commings for a 16-yard completion. Two plays later, Murray went to Jay Rome for a 19-yard touchdown pass. But, mirroring last years SEC title game, Georgia failed to take advantage of some chances to put more points on the board. Early on, Jarvis Jones forced a fumble by McCarron, but Marshall Morgans 50-yard field goal attempt was wide right. Alabama was guilty, too. Lacy was stopped just short stretching for the end zone, the ball squirted loose and McCarron had to fall on it. On the next play, the Tide quarterback threw a horrible pass toward the left pylon, Commings read it all the way and made an easy pick in the end zone. The Tide got rolling late in the first half, the offensive line beginning to assert its dominance over the Bulldogs. Lacy took off down the right side on a 41-yard touchdown after Alabama sealed off Jones with a double team, creating a huge hole. HaHa Clinton-Dix came up with an interception that set up Alabama for a halftime lead, though some questionable clock management by Saban cost a chance to go for a TD. He didnt call his first timeout of the half until 5 seconds remained, after McCarron scrambled to the Georgia 5. With not enough time to get off another play, Jeremy Shelley booted a 22-yard field goal. In the end, the clock went Alabamas way. ' ' '