Tuco

Hard to say. The rule just says it's 15 yards for unsportsmanlike if the player is "running forward and leaping in an obvious attempt to block a field goal or try kick and landing on players, unless the leaping player was originally lined up within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped."

The lining up directly over the center only applies to anyone within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage. If he was within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage before the snap he should have been flagged. I'm assuming they saw something that the team did just before the snap that would give away the timing. Also, a player jumping over the line to block a kick, if he wasn't within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage at the snap, will get a 15 yard penalty if he lands on any player from either team when he comes down. So the whole thing can be risky.

I'll guess Frank Gifford is one.

From NFL.com Play By Play- Tennessee Titans at 15:00 8-B.Cundiff kicks 69 yards from BUF 35 to TEN -4. 20-B.Sankey MUFFS catch, touched at TEN -4, RECOVERED by BUF-88-M.Goodwin at TEN 2. PENALTY on BUF-81-M.Easley, Offside on Free Kick, 5 yards, enforced at BUF 35 - No Play.

Does anybody else have R-berger, Dez Bryant and Andre Ellington on their fantasy team? FML

The only appeal left would be the United States Supreme Court, which gets around 10,000 case applications per year but only agrees to hear around 75. It's almost certain this will be the final stage.

You always have the choice of where to snap the extra point from, as long as it's between the hash marks. Even if you're going for 2.

Patriots* owner Robert Kraft has no relation to Kraft Foods.

Can't say I've ever seen it called that way before but here is how it appears from the 2013 rule book. So it's not something brand new or made up. -- All other Chop Blocks are illegal, including in the following situations: Forward pass plays and kicking plays: (a) A1 chops a defensive player while the defensive player is physically engaged above the waist by the blocking attempt of A2. (b) A2 physically engages a defensive player above the waist with a blocking attempt, and A1 chops the defensive player after the contact by A2 has been broken and while A2 is still confronting the defensive player. (c) A1 chops a defensive player while A2 confronts the defensive player in a pass-blocking posture but is not physically engaged with the defensive player (a ―lure‖). (d) A1 blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower, and A2, simultaneously or immediately after the block by A1, engages the defensive player high (―reverse chop‖).

This investigation is an outrage. Nobody has done anything wrong and the league owes us an apology. Pay no attention to those two stadium employees we fired.

Especially the ones they don't even know.

I agree they blew it bad with Pash. I am somewhat bothered by the fact the league loses every time they go to court. In this case I think it's clear to everyone once the investigation started everybody involved realized this has been an ongoing issue. But the judge seemed to constantly refer to only the one game. I guess the NFL didn't actually specify they were probably punishing for more than that, and apparently they should have, except they really didn't have anything to go on other than common sense and conclusions drawn from lies, evidence tampering and refusals for follow up interviews by any of the involved parties. If the league is required to make their case without the benefit of the power of subpoena, and the perpetrator is allowed to stonewall at every turn, the league would never be able to punish anybody without visual and audio evidence in triplicate. So every time a CBA comes around the league fights tooth and nail to keep the power of discipline under the commissioner's domain and it's supposed to be wide ranging - all encompassing even. We have no way of knowing what the league gives up to keep that disciplinary authority. It could be 1% of total revenues for all we know (about $10 mil extra in salaries per team), maybe more. The point is a wide range of disciplinary authority is supposed to belong to the commissioner but it seems it doesn't. So we have a judge who's not supposed to be ruling on guilt or innocence (and technically didn't) making a courtroom point of asking about direct evidence to find guilt, and consistently referring to just the single game when it's obvious there was more there. This could have been done behind closed doors but was done in open court. So, it seems, the league is held to the standard of bearing the burden of proof while at the same time not being afforded the means to elicit such proof. Then the judge smacks the league down for not not cooperating and obfuscating during the appeal, which is the same thing the league was met with during their investigation only on a wider scale. Cooperation is also a part of the CBA, but in the end the league got smacked down for stonewalling but not the player. By not being able to secure evidence and witnesses the league is forced to draw conclusions from speculation and common sense. They're supposed to have the authority to do that through a negotiated agreement. Yet the judges always seem to minimize that. It's an important part of the CBA but it always seems to get pushed aside. The judges never outright cite any law that says they can't maintain that authority through negotiation, but there always seems to be singular issues which they decide don't fall under the disciplinary umbrella that's supposed to exist. Now, it seems, after 6 tries, the courts have effectively stripped that wide range of authority while the union is left still holding onto whatever they gained by giving it. That part doesn't sit well with me and I don't understand why judges don't allow the commissioner a wider range when it's clearly what they bargained for at arms length negotiations. Yes, please start the season.

Look, I was simply responding to a poster who was claiming the NFL has no rights to suspend a player, that only the player's team can do that. The poster's post said exactly the following- "If a individual violates the NFL Integrity rule that is on the team first, the NFL has no rights to discpline a individual for this" I was just pointing out by pasting paragraph 15 that the poster was incorrect in that statement. This was, actually, after I read the judge's decision where he even mentions the paragraph and gives his reasons why it doesn't apply here. I have my reasons to want to disagree with the judge but I certainly wasn't arguing for it at that point when I posted it. I was responding to "the NFL has no rights to discipline an individual for this." Clearly in this case the judge has decided they don't. But it is still there, stated as a right in every NFL player contract. All I wanted to do was point that out to that poster because I feel his claim that the right doesn't exist was in error.

There is. And it was argued very successfully by the NFLPA. My response was to a poster who was stating forthright that the league could not, and did not have the authority to suspend a player for conduct detrimental, and that only the player's team could do that.

Paragraph 15 of the NFL Player Contract says they do. 15. INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

I agree except I don't mind the investigation. Even the Patsys* claimed to be all for it in the beginning. But then the league discovered evidence that the practice had been going on much longer than one game they were bound to investigate that thoroughly. And that's when the stonewalling and noncooperation really began, leaving the league with no choice but to believe their suspicions were well founded - at which point they had to see it through regardless of the slimness of evidence. But the union did give (negotiated) the league that power and I don't think the judge gave that enough weight. The judge, of course, is probably not too concerned with what I think.

But if you're not allowed to subpoena records or witnesses because it's not a criminal case, that leaves the guilty party free to stonewall and destroy evidence. It wasn't just the phone the league was also denied any questioning of Needle Dee and Needle Dum under oath. So you give the commissioner the power to oversee as he sees fit instead, but then when you don't like his actions you get a judge hold the same commissioner to the standard of a criminal court, even though he was denied criminal court resources? And also tell the commissioner that stonewalling and destroying evidence isn't punishable either? I've read the judge's decision and can mostly understand his reasoning. But the commissioner was given that power during arm's length negotiation and it just seems wrong for the judge to take it away. Who can say what the league gave up in negotiations in order to keep the commissioner's authority as is? I don't see how the judge can dismiss that. As another poster pointed out, there is legal precedent that you can't gain something in arbitration that you didn't gain in collective bargaining.

I'd be surprised. The appellate court will not be so accommodating as to issue a ruling based on any deadlines. More likely Brady will be retired and remarried by the time it gets resolved now.

I agree. I know we get involved and some people get quite emotional about our Bills. And I know in my case I use words like hate and kill when talking about other teams and players. But that's just speaking relative to the subject. At the end of the day it's only football.

Yup. Won't be long anyway.

I have to disagree too. He didn't swear he never instructed anybody to deflate them below the legal limit. He swore he never instructed anyone to lower the pressure at all - and that's still a violation if he did. And unless you believe McNally did it on his own, Brady is lying. From the district court transcript- Q. Okay. Now, have you ever specifically, so again, very specific question, have you ever told anyone on the Patriots after you’ve given to them that they should change the inflation level of the footballs after you approved them or do anything about the inflation level after you approved them? A. No. Q. Now, what would be your reaction if Mr. Jastremski or anyone else in the Patriots was doing something to the footballs after you’ve approved it? How would you feel about that? A. I would disapprove of that. Q. Why? Why would it matter to you? A. Because I go through, like I said, this extensive process to pick out the balls for the game, and that’s the ball ultimately that I want on the field that I play with. So once I pick the ball out, then I don’t want anything other than that ball to be the one that I am on the field playing with. After another length of questioning where Brady claimed he only learned of the 12.5 psi rule after the Jets game and he requested equipment manager Dave Schoenfeld to inform the refs of the rule so they would never be as hard as they were again, the questions followed- Q. Other than that comment, have you ever, after that time, told Mr. Jastremski or anybody else in the Patriots anything else about the pressure of footballs? Was there any comments at all that you make to them — A. No. Q. — until this happened? A. No. If you believe Brady never told McNally to deflate the balls I guess there's not much we can do to change your mind. But whether McNally's deflation resulted in actually going below the legal limit is the only trivial part. Conspiring to break the rules is still punishable. I can't believe McNally did it on his own. Therefore I have to believe Brady conspired with McNally in order to change the levels of the balls after they were officially inspected. Remember, McNally isn't even an equipment man. His only job is the officials locker room game day attendant. Yet he's getting all sort of kicks from a guy who claimed he didn't even know him, but who's text messages prove Brady was talking about him. And he's disappearing with the footballs before the game. And as far as Brady is concerned the condition of the balls is very important. Now I will agree with you this could have been minimized like other equipment violations, but only if it was admitted to like other equipment violations. If Brady and everybody fessed up it would have been over quickly. But they way it went down the league had to see it through. First they determined Brady lied. Then when they found evidence not only of lying but of the same violation occurring more often than just the one game. Then the two guys got fired so the Pats* couldn't be pressured into having them interviewed again, and everything was stonewalled from that point on. The league has good reason to believe Brady guilty. And they have good reason to add punishment for not cooperating. And they have good reason to see it through to its highest level. I think Brady and the Pats* are as much at fault for making a big deal out of this as anybody. My $.02

Actually it would. Now I don't believe for a minute anybody would prosecute him for that. But there's also damage to his reputation. I know it's already damaged severely. But as long as he maintains complete innocence he still will always have a small amount of plausible deniability. That may not be worth much right now but as time passes he could still have some value through endorsements, etc. Admitting guilt would erase all that forever. Especially admitting guilt after all this time. Remember Kraft asked him right off if he did anything wrong and said if so let's deal with it. I don't believe Brady is innocent at all. But at this point I certainly understand why he would be reluctant to ever admit guilt, If he was going to admit it the time would have been back in February. Admitting it at this point would tarnish him more than never admitting it.

The NFL is asking him to admit to breaking the rules. Since Brady's previous testimony has been entered into the court record, agreeing to that now would amount to perjury.

The extra 6 players is the NFL's version of in season disabled list. Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away (sorry), in a time when there were no salary caps and no practice squads, the rule was every team had a 47 man roster. That was it. If you got ready on game day and only had 44 healthy guys you played with 44 while the other team played with 45 or 47 or whatever they had. Except there was one other difference back then. Anybody who made the final 47 man roster could go on injured reserve and come back during the season and play. This led teams to stash players on IR. Many of them were young players who would be told to get "injured" in the last preseason game. These guys were promising but maybe not ready yet so teams would keep them on until the final rosters were set. Then teams would release old veterans they figured weren't going any place (for the Bills it was guys like Mike Lodish and Gale Gilbert), get the extra guys onto the 47 man roster, then put those guys on IR and re-sign the guys they had just cut. It was very common and every team did this. But with no salary cap some teams would do it with a lot more players than others. So along comes the salary cap and free agency and all this modern day stuff we have. The salary cap made it important to keep teams from stashing players like they had done. So the first thing they did was say anybody on injured reserve is gone for the year. That took care of that stashing practice but then teams were worried about only having 42-43 players or so available for games even though some guys were only out for a week or two. So they said, okay, we'll increase the rosters to 53 but each team can still only dress 47 on game day. That way teams can be flexible with their short term injuries but still should be able to field the same number of players on game day. Then they added practice squads so teams could keep younger players around and have them available if they got even further decimated by injuries. But the point is, the extra 6 guys are there to give roster flexibility especially for players who may only be out a week or two or four or whatever. If they started letting teams dress all 53, in no time there would be teams complaining because they only have 49 healthy guys while the other team has 53. Then they would do the same thing and say okay expand the roster to 60 and dress 53. It would be the same problem all over, not to mention the amount of salary cap would have to be completely renegotiated to cover the extra players. Would the owners pay out more or would the players take less? People are always saying the NFL needs a short term disabled list like baseball or something similar. The 53 man roster while dressing 47 is the NFL's version of that. It's there every week. It's very flexible and teams can use it however they want.

Back in Buffalo.