As the Patriots and Bengals wait to revise their game plans for Sunday based on the outcome of the Ja'Marr Chase appeal hearing, it's important to note that the NFL-NFL Players Association hearing officers are far from independent.

The trio of hearing officers — Derrick Brooks, Ramon Foster, and Jordy Nelson (who will handle the Chase case) — are "jointly appointed and compensated by the NFL and NFL Players Association to decide appeals of on-field player discipline." They does not make them independent, free from consequence for any ruling that one side or the other doesn't like.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement explains that, as to hearings for on-field misconduct (like spitting on an opponent), the NFL and NFLPA "shall, on an annual basis, jointly select two (2) or more designees to serve as hearing officers." It's a year-at-a-time appointment. And if one side or the other doesn't want to continue with a given hearing officer, they'll jointly appoint someone else.

This dynamic interjects a potential political consideration into the analysis. When faced with a tough decision, the hearing officer may ask himself (consciously or not) whether the NFL or the NFLPA will be more upset with a bad outcome.

As to Chase, it seems safer to the long-term assignment to uphold the suspension. The league clearly wants it. And the NFLPA currently is in a state of disarray. Even if the union currently had a long-term leader and no turmoil whatsoever, would the NFLPA want union members to not face significant punishment for spitting on other union members?

Keep that in mind, and don't be surprised if Chase's suspension is upheld. Even if the NFL has never actually suspended a player for spitting on another player.