|
Quote:
The Hornung reference is a good one though. There of course two marquee guys get bounced for a whole year for betting on games (not their own) -- acts that had no influence on who actually won. Here, the conduct was specifically designed to help the cheating team win, and yet the one with knowledge and orchestrator of that conduct is suspended for only 1/4 of the season (likely less after appeal), still causing the gnashing of teeth by those who cry railroad. Some could say the firm hand of league integrity is a little wobbly today. |
Quote:
I suspect Brady will appeal and considering Goodell's horrible luck with the appeal process the number of games suspended will likely go down. But the main reason he keeps losing is because he overreacts with a monster suspension after the media and public cry out over the light sentence he had previously handed out. I don't think Brady's 4 games is an overreaction and I suspect it might stick. Hard to feel sorry for Brady when he lied to the investigators and didn't turn over his phone. He's acting like a criminal in a context which does not include possible criminal penalties. He got what he deserved here. |
Quote:
|
Pretty fair penalty handed out by the NFL, now it has to stick to remain meaningful. Brady's suspension can't get reduced to two games instead of four, otherwise not enough incentive to prevent some other form of cheating by another team in the future. I won't mind seeing the Pats have to forfeit that playoff win but that would leave the NFL in a shambles as to the 2014-2015 playoffs outcome.........No Champion?............What would they do?
|
In a completely unrelated story...
1 Attachment(s)
Patriots sign undrafted free agent....
|
I still don't think you can turn back time so they are the champs to me. But I hope that moving forward they will be under the most intense of scrutiny and be embarrassed every weekend when a ref stops play to test the inflation of their footballs.
|
Quote:
|
Yes, those refs. Maybe some new ones. I don't know what the NFL's turnover is like.
|
Having read the excerpts from the letters sent to the team and Brady I think the punishment is just about right. Maybe a bit less so for the team. I'll go with the coach and management not knowing, since the NFL investigation says no. But I'm not sure I believe that. Brady trying to cover stuff up is probably at least two of the four games.
Brady certainly was acting like a guy with something to hide. But..............He must have some "interesting" stuff on his phone, maybe some pictures he was sent? yeah, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't hand over the phone either I can't imagine Giselle being mad as a good thing. I do have a few questions though. My phone shows both sides of the text conversation. But it's windows. Do the other two hide the incoming side after a time? And if not why would they even need Bradys phone after getting the other two? The next two are partly sarcastic/kidding, partly not. Two of the Colts balls were also underinflated at halftime. Since we have to believe the refs checked ALL the balls, then the Colts must have deflated a couple too. When is the report on that and the announcement of fines/suspensions ? Or do they claim the pats staff also deflated a couple for the other team? Or just maybe - The refs didn't check all of them? One of the texts references the refs overinflating some balls to 16 Psi for an earlier game. Can I assume that either 1) They were sort of covering for deflation by overinflating. OR 2) The refs were altering the ball by overinflating and we'll see some fallout from that soon. Either way those refs were either adversely affecting the team deliberately, or were attempting to cover up cheating with some other cheating. Neither is acceptable, but I'd be willing to bet there won't be any punishment. All in all the rule and it's oversight is very poor. But it won't get rewritten, and the equipment used won't get any better. Steve B |
The released texts were between equipment managers. I'd imagine Brady doesn't want to release his texts because his texts are between himself and their supervisors, who probably were the ones to filter down the directions. That would also further implicate the team and not just an individual.
|
So.....For how long has this been a rule anyway? Did they measure the PSI on the balls in the 20's? 30's? 40's, 50's, 60's ?
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/200...tion-committee Seems like a whole lot to do about nothing. Read that article from 2006 !! |
It's what happened in 2006 that makes Brady even less worthy of sympathy. It was that year that NFL quarterbacks, led by Manning and Brady, got the league to change its prior policy of having the home teams supply all the footballs. They argued that they are in essence artists who ought to have some control over the type of ball they throw, and the league agreed, allowing the visitors to bring their own balls. As part of the process, if it didn't already exist, specs were used as to the level of inflation those balls must possess, i.e.,within a certain range of air pressure.
Brady thus has known about the air-pressure rule since at least 2006. At that time he either got all that he wanted, including an acceptable range of PSI, from the NFL, or he at least got his primary wish of using his own team's balls and knew what the limits were on PSI. Either way and both knowing that this was a rule and the process for changing it if he was unhappy, he instead decided on his own that the rule could be discarded and avoided, and acted surreptitiously to do just that. |
If the report exonerates the Patriots of wrongdoing or of having knowledge of what may have happened, how is fining the team and taking draft choices justified?
As to Brady, the report contains a lot of weasel wording (e.g. probably knew) and given the NFL's procedural incompetence regarding ball chain of custody, and an investigative report that is riddled with holes, I think that the suspension will eventually be walked back to two games. I think the commish overreached here in reaction to the mud on his face from the Ray Rice case. For the record, not a Pats fan, so I don't have a dog in this race. I'm a Redskins fan, so I don't have a dog in any race |
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
You tell um Joe.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Good point, Joe. Now, in a related story, New England just got a new shipment of.....you guessed it......balls:
|
Quote:
You do know the commish didn't decided on the 4 games. |
Suspending Brady for four games accomplishes nothing in my opinion.
They should have allowed Brady to play and suspended the offensive line for four games. |
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vn_PSJsl0LQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
On David Letterman last night:
It was so hot in New York today that Tom Brady was deflating footballs just for the breeze. |
Quote:
In any case, the suspension IMO will be at a minimum reduced, and most likely overturned. |
Anyone with a brain knows that if you inflate a ball or anything else in a warm room and then take it out in cold weather it will drop in poundage. There is no one to blame but the refs. this is stupid beyond belief.
|
Do you really think the deflation was a natural occurrence? Even after knowing that there were text messages between equipment managers specifically related to deflating the footballs to Brady's liking? I'm just curious how you can maintain that the footballs deflated naturally despite explicit text messages that say otherwise from the people who handle equipment.
|
Quote:
|
Ask "The Deflator" :p
|
Quote:
An interesting take here on a few inconsistencies in the report. Not all of the reporters points are valid, but some seem to be. I especially don't think numbers 10 and 3 are valid. The rest seem to make at least some sense. Steve B http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015...ys-suspension/ |
Quote:
|
:confused:
Quote:
|
This thread summarized:
Patriots are CHEATERS Brady suspended Suspension upheld Justice served End of story |
My summary: the NFL does not care about real issues like head trauma to players, or domestic violence. Ray Rice two games for beating the crap out of his fiancée, Tom Brady four for "probably" knowing about taking a little air out of a football. End of story.
|
Man it drives me nuts that people still don't think he knew about the footballs.
|
It drives me nuts that Goodell denies the connection between football and brain injuries despite overwhelming evidence.
|
Quote:
Also how do you justify comparing Brady and the Cheatriots ruining the integrity of the game with some players off the field actions. Yes they done horrible things but in no way did it affect the outcome of a single game. |
This is a power struggle between Kraft and goodell. Both are vipers.
|
What is this, ancient Rome where we sacrifice people for entertainment value? The NFL could do much much more to protect its players, but chooses to play ostrich. And because they deny the risks many of the young men who take them are certainly not fully informed.
|
If a lineman gets away with a hold that springs a back for the winning touchdown, did that "cheating" affect the integrity of the game?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And all that aside, why won't the NFL do more to protect its players, whether or not they understand the risks? It isn't 1815 Ben, it's ancient Rome and the arena. But let's keep all that hush hush and worry about a football underinflated by 1 PSI. |
Time for a new Puppet?
-from ESPN.com:
Once again, it's on. This is civil war. An enraged Robert Kraft reopened the door Wednesday morning to every NFL Armageddon scenario imaginable, right up to the eventual ouster of commissioner Roger Goodell. Kraft's renewed disgust with the league's handling of Deflategate, and most recently its decision to uphold Tom Brady's four-game suspension, should put the entire industry on notice. Consider: The New England Patriots are the NFL's second-most valuable team, worth an estimated $2.6 billion, according to Forbes magazine. Kraft is the chairman of the NFL's broadcast committee, arguably the most important in the sport, and he was among the most responsible for Goodell's ascension to commissioner in 2006. Now, here we are with Kraft using words such as "unfathomable" to describe the league's actions. He is openly accusing the league of trying to capture headlines while obscuring its lack of hard evidence. To be clear, Kraft's reaction is unprecedented in modern NFL history. It's true that the late Al Davis subverted league rule at every opportunity during his time as the Oakland Raiders' managing partner, but he did so with the full understanding that he was a counterculture rebel whose opinions were never taken seriously. Within league circles, Kraft has never been Al Davis. His opposition here is understandable from a standpoint of loyalty but also counter to the one-for-all ethos that the league and its owners expect from one another. You can argue the significance of football inflation all you want. Reasonable people can debate the extent of culpability for both the Patriots and Brady. What is indisputable, however, is that one of the league's most powerful owners, and one of its marquee franchises, is in open public rebellion for the first time that anyone can remember. Kraft now regrets his decision to give up this fight in the spring, and it's unlikely he'll back down again any time soon. This dispute has turned into a full-fledged internal war. Hang on. Anything could happen. . . |
The only thing better than Kraft was Belichick's complete non-responses to questions. Highly amusing.
|
Well, you have to understand Mr. Kraft's point of view:
What has he gotten for a return on his investment? oh yeah, there's THAT, but money, even M-O-N-E-Y, isn't everything, right? - well, maybe not, but THAT much money is darn close! . . I think Mr. Kraft should IPO his franchise to share this burden he has carried so bravely for so long. I'd buy a share - Wouldn't you? . . |
???????
Quote:
|
Popcorn season
Can't wait-- the NFL v. Patriots/Brady in two federal court cases, even though one will likely be stayed or dismissed. Arrogance vs. Incompetence. Buh, buh, buh, buh---I'm lovin' it!
Hope it goes the proverbial 15 rounds with each side throwing haymakers. Air out that dirty laundry --spill those dirty little secrets. Could prove more entertaining than the Republican debates. |
No offense to football players but if by now you aren't informed enough about concussions and football related injuries it is because you are either willfully ignorant or there is no reaching you. So I have trouble finding sympathy for those that later experience the side effects of football. Of course I have nothing but sympathy for their families and the results of their careers. But I don't support the lawsuits.
|
So you expect some kid to stand up to a team doctor and coach telling him it's ok to go back in? Or to form a judgment that even though the league is saying there is no evidence, there really is? I don't think that's realistic.
|
Quote:
The NFL now is like kids playing candyland compared to 20-30 years ago with the much better protective gear and rules changes. I am not saying there is not a lot of physician contact but no where near as bad as before. So IMO they have done a lot to protect the players. Whether it is enough or not is debatable. I could really care less about the 1 PSI debate as I really take the NFL as serious as I take the WWE or whatever they call wrestling entertainment these days. |
I can't help, but think of what else is being destroyed in New England right now.
|
Quote:
I'm not saying I'd support a lawsuit filed by a current player but somebody who retired 10-20 years ago? Sure thing. |
I see it the same way I do boxing. If you were a professional fighter being punched in the head for a living, can you really claim you didn't know being punched in the head would have a negative effect on your life?
Playing football is violent and even if someone is telling you that you're fine, you're the one who ultimately decides to play. So if there is someone who is liable for your injuries, it's my opinion that the person you're looking to point your finger at is yourself. |
Quote:
Edit: maybe being a former boxer is clouding my judgement. I have definatelly been hit in the head a lot. |
This isn't quite the same thing, but 30 years ago I played football in High School. There wasn't a day in practice or a game when I didn't see "stars" from some hit. The word concussion wasn't even in our vocabulary and it never was mentioned (from what I can recall :rolleyes:). Today things are different, as safety, concussions and head trauma prevention is the number one concern on our HS team, and safety first is pervasive in every action the team takes.
|
No money at the HS level which is why they are conscientious. Take it up to the next level and then the next, and money starts to trump morals.
|
Quote:
There's the money right there. The potential spectacle of a well rested Brady coming into the colts game having had 5+ weeks to do nothing but study film.....It'll either be an epic blowout or a rout of the current "bad guy" who comes back rusty. Figure a 50-50 split in the hopes of the fans, and a bit of premium pricing on the ads? That's a can't lose PR win for the NFL in general. On the other points. The NFL hasn't done enough about head injuries. Look at the helmet tech in motorsports especially the more expensive divisions like F1. The sort of stuff those guys walk away from (Sometimes literally ) Is far rougher than an NFL hit. They're also very inconsistent in punishments. Ray Rice gets 2 games eventually a season, back to 2 games in court, Brady 4 One may have known someone else was playing with the footballs or even asked that they do that. The other committed an actual crime that was recorded on video. That's a mess. Adrian Peterson got essentially a full season suspension, which was appropriate. Both Came after the debacle with Ray Rice and it could be argued that their punishments were more severe because of that earlier controversy. The person handing out the suspension also being the one to hear the appeal I hope needs no explanation as to why it's not appropriate. Steve B |
"The person handing out the suspension also being the one to hear the appeal I hope needs no explanation as to why it's not appropriate."
I’m one who doesn’t get a lot of heartburn over that. It is not that unusual for a judge who has made a ruling in a case to be presented with a motion for reconsideration, in which he or she is presented with (supposedly) new arguments or evidence that politely suggest the decision previously rendered should be overturned. One rationale for this is to allow the decision-maker who is alleged to have erred an opportunity to correct the mistake without the need to bother or provide additional work for the appellate forum up the chain. Although reconsideration motions seldom succeed, so long as there is available a further and reasonable avenue of appeal in front of someone else, in this case a Federal District Court, then I don’t consider it a big deal for Goodell to act as he did. Maybe it's not the best system, but I do not see it so fundamentally flawed as the NFLPA argues. This is particularly so when the “integrity of the game” is the issue, whether or not you think the rules for equipment violations rise to that level; in that event, the Commissioner is aptly suited and perhaps the best qualified to decide, and not some disinterested party who presumably is somewhat removed from the game and its industry. I’ve stopped investing much time in this, so maybe others can research or remind me of what all happened earlier, but if I recall, the whole process was collectively bargained, so the union had an opportunity to negotiate a different disciplinary process and ultimately agreed to this one. I also thought when Goodell first looked into this he delegated the matter to Troy Vincent, to which the NFLPA objected also, saying Goodell himself should preside. Had they been granted their wish, there would be even less independence when he heard an appeal of his own, wholly-made initial decision. You may think he simply rubber-stamped his delegated representative’s recommendation or ruling, and/or that the law firm hired to investigate and report was biased, but at least in theory there were other sets of eyes and ears on these issues as part of the process. I am not convinced the union or its clients had the right to expect fully unassociated, agreed-upon arbiters and fact-finders appointed for this case, or that the failure to provide same results in a breach of either the collective bargaining agreement or fundamental fairness. |
Big difference, Todd. A judge is a neutral with no stake in the outcome.
|
Then don't allow the Commissioner to be any part of the disciplinary process. Bargain and negotiate accordingly.
How is it apparently OK for the Commish to hear the initial matter so long as someone else hears the appeal-- is he not just as biased as a stakeholder in the first step as the second? So what's the difference if the aggrieved player get's "homered" in stage one or stage two, so long as there is a stage 3 before a neutral? Is justice really set on its ear? And if so, how did the union agree to such a fundamentally flawed arrangement? |
Quote:
|
BTW, what is Goodell's stake in the outcome? He has an incentive to punish one of the most high-profile franchises in the league and its golden boy, do no wrong QB? He loves the negative publicity and acrimony that builds up from his decision? Who brought all of this on in the first place?
|
Quote:
|
That argument is unpersuasive Peter. There's plenty of backlash as it is. Besides, many would have been in favor of a reduction without concluding that he had "caved"; hell, by most accounts Goodell was trying hard to reach a settlement without rendering a decision on the appeal at all, one which would have provided a reduced suspension--perhaps greatly reduced-- so I find it a stretch to believe he felt pressured to stick to the four-game penalty. It was Brady's side that was unaccommodating if not down right rigid in continuing this charade that he did no wrong and that anything greater than zero games would be appealed.
There may be several meaty points on appeal worth consideration. My point was that this crying about Goodell's position in the process is weak, and that it was agreed-upon in an arm's length negotiation. Good luck making that "we were outmaneuvered, obviously" argument to the District Court judge. |
Straw man Todd. You asked how it happened, I said they were outmaneuvered. I never said that would be a good argument to a court.
And if he had reduced it to one game -- the most this piddly crap deserved -- I think he would have faced severe criticism from all the "integrity of the game" people who think one PSI is more important than concussions and brain injuries. |
Thanks Todd and Peter for the interesting views on Goodell hearing the appeal.
I wasn't aware of the motion for reconsideration. Somehow the news about cases always misses that. Unless it's not common. But from what I've read here it seems like a motion for reconsideration isn't unusual? In the news it always seems to be case/appeal/bigger appeal/ and eventually maybe the supreme court if it's important enough or someone being out of options if it isn't (Or if they're just plain wrong ) That part of the process makes sense the way Todd has explained it. I wasn't really concerned much about it to begin with although it seemed wrong. But now I'm thinking it's ok. One of the things that struck me during the lead in to the appeal was that the NFLPA apparently could ask for an arbitrator and did but Goodell rejected that request. I'm sure there was some behind the scenes stuff we may never know. And yes, for sure the backlash would have been enormous. What do you think about not using the existing rule and penalty? It seems to me that without the public outcry, it would have been the required 25K fine, maybe for each ball and that would be the end of it. (Probably another example of the laymans understanding of legal stuff being incomplete at best - I hear fairly often that someones prior record can't be used. Maybe at sentencing it can but not earlier? ) Steve B |
Steve, the path for a labor dispute under a collective bargaining agreement is very different from the path of a court case typically initiated in a trial level court. Here, the "appeal" is in the first instance to the Commissioner and THEN to a federal district (trial) court. A normal federal court case would be initiated at the district court level, with an appeal to a federal appeals court, and a (typically) discretionary appeal from there to the US Supreme Court. There is a similar path for state court cases.
|
Cool! I've learned a few interesting things today :)
Steve B Quote:
|
In a court case, you don't hear about motions for reconsideration all that much because the grounds are very narrow. You can't just ask a court to take another look at what it just did. And even at that, the overwhelming majority are denied.
|
While motions for reconsideration are somewhat unusual, motions for new trial are not, and in fact are often a pre-requisite to an appeal. Such motions are another example of letting the same judge re-visit the outcome over which he himself presided, by arguing that certain errors in the trial require that a decision be reversed. Again these are not widely granted, but they represent situations where the same decision-maker is basically asked to undo what was done before. The fact that your chances of winning are not good does not make the process fundamentally unfair, as again these provide an opportunity for correction of errors while still preserving a party's right to appeal to another forum.
|
Quote:
I think I'm going to take a break from this whole thing for awhile-- I doubt many or maybe any have changed their positions since this story first broke and I really have no strong preference as to the outcome. |
Quote:
But none of that has anything to do with Deflate-gate. As Jeff mentioned in a main board thread, follow the money to get your answers. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:12 PM. |