syhuang

We already went through this and we're in a loop now. In the end, you said Ross has better lawyers and will get any civil lawsuit dismissed. While I agree the chance of civil lawsuit is low, I wouldn't claim 100% any lawsuit will be tossed out. No need to repeat the whole thing again, you can go through the posts yesterday. Anyway, glad we agree on the criminal charge lawsuit part and agree to disagree on whether all civil lawsuit will be 100% tossed out.

Okay, but glad we agree on the criminal charge lawsuit part and agree to disagree on whether all civil lawsuit will be 100% tossed out.

Glad we iron out the part that there is a ground for a (criminal case) lawsuit against Ross and that's probably the only way to find out the detail of the supposed bribery.

A criminal charge is still a lawsuit. Basically a criminal case is a lawsuit brought by the state, usually filed by the district attorney, which represents the state. This is getting into semantics territory. It looks like when you say "lawsuit", you only refer to "civil lawsuit" and exclude criminal charge. Let's just agree there is definitely a ground for criminal charge. We can then agree to disagree whether a criminal charge is a lawsuit. As for whether civil lawsuits get a chance, I'd say the chance is low, but can't definitely say there is 0 chance. Again, let's just agree to disagree on that. The point still remains, that there is a ground for a (criminal case) lawsuit against Ross and that's probably the only way to find out the detail of the supposed bribery.

A criminal case is definitely more likely if that happens. On the other hand, anyone with too much money and/or time can bring up a lawsuit against Ross by whatever reason he can think of like claiming loss from betting lines/odds. These days people can sue others by any kind of reasons if they like. It may not stand after all but doesn't stop those ridiculous suits. But anyway, the point is that there is a ground for a lawsuit against Ross (and yes, a criminal case is more likely) and that's probably the only way to find out the detail of the supposed bribery.

Yes, public against Ross is a possiblity. Again, it doesn't need any game outcome was actually affected or any one actually suffered any loss as long as Ross indeed attempted it. Read the following again especially the "attempt" keyword highlighted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- §224. Bribery in sporting contests (a) Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (b) This section shall not be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which this section operates to the exclusion of a law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, and no law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, which would be valid in the absence of the section shall be declared invalid, and no local authorities shall be deprived of any jurisdiction over any offense over which they would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section. (c) As used in this section- (1) The term "scheme in commerce" means any scheme effectuated in whole or in part through the use in interstate or foreign commerce of any facility for transportation or communication; (2) The term "sporting contest" means any contest in any sport, between individual contestants or teams of contestants (without regard to the amateur or professional status of the contestants therein), the occurrence of which is publicly announced before its occurrence; (3) The term "person" means any individual and any partnership, corporation, association, or other entity.

The post you questioned says "could come from a public suit that hasn't yet been filed regarding the NFL/Ross's ties to gambling and impacting game outcomes." You questioned game outcomes aren't impacted since Flores turned down alleged bonuses. I then replied to you to mention that a public suit doesn't need any game outcome being actually impacted as long as Ross indeed "attempted" to do so.

It doesn't matter whether any game outcome is indeed affected. As long as Ross does "attempt" to do so, he is in trouble. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I-CRIMES, CHAPTER 11-BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST §224. Bribery in sporting contests (a) Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (b) This section shall not be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which this section operates to the exclusion of a law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, and no law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, which would be valid in the absence of the section shall be declared invalid, and no local authorities shall be deprived of any jurisdiction over any offense over which they would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section. (c) As used in this section- (1) The term "scheme in commerce" means any scheme effectuated in whole or in part through the use in interstate or foreign commerce of any facility for transportation or communication; (2) The term "sporting contest" means any contest in any sport, between individual contestants or teams of contestants (without regard to the amateur or professional status of the contestants therein), the occurrence of which is publicly announced before its occurrence; (3) The term "person" means any individual and any partnership, corporation, association, or other entity.

Does "may be able to back up allegations" depend on how much Ross is willing to pay? 😎

I remember he continued to play into 4th quarter, but I could remember it wrong. Do you mean this is not the play when you saw the incident? If so, do you remember which play or quarter when the interaction happened? Or do you just mean the broadcast didn't catch the interaction you saw? If so, what I was trying to say is that whatever happened seems to only last few seconds and ended quickly.

The throw was to Davis but the defender batted the ball down and makes it looks like it's a short throw to Beasley. It's not a good throw but Allen was trying to throw to Davis for the 1st down. It seems like whatever happened, it happened quickly and ended quickly. The following is the whole play in the broadcast. Beasley was still in the middle of the field at 16th second mark of this video, play clock was at 34 seconds then. When the camera had Allen walking to sideline, McD was in the background at 24th second mark and didn't seem to argue with anyone. The next time we see the sideline is at 32nd second mark as in the first video. Thus, it seems like whatever happened only lasted several seconds and ended quickly.

Is this what you refer to? If so, I'm not surprising no media makes a big deal out of it.

not sure. People did ask whether anyone else saw it, other posters in the game said not seeing that, and then a mod said replying not seeing it brings absolutely nothing to the discussion.

It's definitely feasible but doesn't fit OP's description of the play. Thus, it'd be great he can clarify it. Maybe he remember some details wrong? If so, does he remember any other detail wrong as well?

That's not the play OP described though. The play he described is in the end of this post while the only 3rd down imcompletion (he said it's an imcompletion in his first post) to Beasley is 3rd&4 at BUF 22. 3rd & 4 at BUF 22 (5:42 - 3rd) (Shotgun) J.Allen pass incomplete short middle to C.Beasley. The only other failed 3rd down conversion related to Beasley is a 3rd&10 play below, this is probably the one you refer to. However, it's not well into Jets territory as OP described and it's not a pass to center of the field. Thus, it'd be great OP can clarify if he remembers some details wrong. If so, any other detail he remembers wrong as well. 3rd & 10 at BUF 34 (3:40 - 2nd) (Shotgun) J.Allen pass short left to C.Beasley to BUF 34 for 9 yards (J.Pinnock). FUMBLES (J.Pinnock), ball out of bounds at BUF 34. Ball placed at point of fumble.

not upset, at least for me. Due to the play OP described doesn't seem to match any in play-by-play, want to ask for OP's clarification like here before forming my own opinion.

In the meantime, the well-respected football poster described a play doesn't seem to match any in play-by-play. Thus, asking for his clarification. The play he described is following while the only 3rd down imcompletion to Beasley was at Bills' 22. Maybe the well-respected football poster remember some of the details wrong? It's not a 3rd down? It's not to Beasley? It's not well into Jets territory? If the well-respected football poster remembers some details wrong, is there any other detail he remembers wrong as well? Hey, I admit I don't like Beasley's act on his distraction from his vaccine/twitter drama and don't mind he not returning next season, but it doesn't mean I'd jump into something like this before getting more info about it. Maybe it's too much to ask in the internet era, but this is how I prefer to react regarding something like this.

Do you get a chance to figure out which play and which quarter it is? Since the only 3rd down imcompletion to Beasley in play-by-play is at Bills' 22, it's confusing which play you refer to.

The only 3rd down imcompletion to Beasley in play-by-play is at Bills' 22. Maybe play-by-play is wrong. If you find out which play it is, please post here and I'll try to see if broadcast shows it.

Re-watch the game and do not see the scene @BADOLBILZ described. After the imcompletion, broadcast showed Beasley got up walking toward sideline. But before players and coaches at sideline were even in the screen, a replay was showed. Immediately after the replay, broadcast showed the punt team ready to punt (and then Haack muff'ed it). Maybe @BADOLBILZ can clarify which play he referred to? In play-by-play, this is the only 3rd incompletion to Beasley.

Star played 18 snaps yesterday: