Beerball Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 U.S Court of Appeals upholds District Court ruling Doesn't change the fact that belichick* is a cheating scum sucking POS.
Offside Number 76 Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 Agree with the court 100%. There simply isn't an actionable injury here. Did you read the whole opinion & notice who is quoted (citing an earlier, state court opinion) in the third-to-last paragraph? "Buffalo News sports editor, Larry Felser, in his column of May 30, 1983 warned of the dire consequences of permitting such a theory of recovery to exist, `If the fan (plaintiff) wins against the Bills, every lawyer in Western New York could use the precedent to finance a vacation to the Riviera.'"
justnzane Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 U.S Court of Appeals upholds District Court ruling Doesn't change the fact that belichick* is a cheating scum sucking POS. the court of appeals reasoning was bull ****. They acknowledged that the Pats* cheated, but refused to give it to the fan as the fans have lost before him.
CircleTheWagons Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 It seems the court is simply saying that the teams provided the entertainment that was promised by the ticket, but I wonder what would have happened if the case was brought against the Patriots by somebody that legally bet on the game and lost money.
bartshan-83 Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 the court of appeals reasoning was bull ****. They acknowledged that the Pats* cheated, but refused to give it to the fan as the fans have lost before him. The reasoning was perfectly sound. A ticket is a revocable license. It guarantees a person entrance to private property, subject to time and location limitations. Mayer's claim that "the tickets imply that each game will be played in accordance with NFL rules and regulations as well as all applicable federal and state laws" sounds nice, but doesn't really mean anything in this instance. Now if he was alleging that the NFL knew about this all along and was in collusion with the Patriots, I could see a different case. The last few paragraphs of the opinion nailed it. The fact that a team breaks the rules during a game does not violate the contractual rights of a ticket purchaser. Teams break rules all the time and the refs miss it. The Pats* broke the rules here and the NFL missed it. It seems the court is simply saying that the teams provided the entertainment that was promised by the ticket, but I wonder what would have happened if the case was brought against the Patriots by somebody that legally bet on the game and lost money. I would think the outcome would be the same. What if a legal bettor sued the NFL because a ref missed a penalty that decided the outcome of the game and therefore his wager? Of if that same bettor sued the Patriots because Brandon Merriweather grabbed a WRs jersey preventing the winning TD? Besides the scale, how is that different than Mayer suing the NFL because "they" missed a penalty that decided the outcome of a game(s)?
CircleTheWagons Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 I would think the outcome would be the same. What if a legal bettor sued the NFL because a ref missed a penalty that decided the outcome of the game and therefore his wager? Of if that same bettor sued the Patriots because Brandon Merriweather grabbed a WRs jersey preventing the winning TD? Besides the scale, how is that different than Mayer suing the NFL because "they" missed a penalty that decided the outcome of a game(s)? Missed penalties are an expected part of the game. In my mind, the original lawsuit was dismissed because the plaintiff received the contracted entertainment, however the gambler bet on a game that was misrepresented. If you told a gambler that there will be missed penalties in the game, he would probably still make his bet; if you told him one side was filming the other team's practices outside the rules of the NFL, he probably would not make the bet or change his bet.
bartshan-83 Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 Missed penalties are an expected part of the game. In my mind, the original lawsuit was dismissed because the plaintiff received the contracted entertainment, however the gambler bet on a game that was misrepresented. If you told a gambler that there will be missed penalties in the game, he would probably still make his bet; if you told him one side was filming the other team's practices outside the rules of the NFL, he probably would not make the bet or change his bet. I get what you are saying. Shirley there is a difference between the situations; I agree. I just think the result would be the same. In essence, one team (NE) was breaking the rules and not getting caught and that affected the outcome of the game. It's on a different scale from in-game penalties, but it is essentially the same idea. If you told that same gambler that one team had devised a good scheme of holding on every play but not getting caught, they probably wouldn't make the bet either. There have been point-shaving scandals before...I'm not aware of any successful lawsuits against any of the major sports leagues or NCAA by disenfranchised gamblers.
Beerball Posted May 20, 2010 Author Posted May 20, 2010 I get what you are saying. Shirley there is a difference between the situations; I agree. I just think the result would be the same. In essence, one team (NE) was breaking the rules and not getting caught and that affected the outcome of the game. It's on a different scale from in-game penalties, but it is essentially the same idea. If you told that same gambler that one team had devised a good scheme of holding on every play but not getting caught, they probably wouldn't make the bet either. There have been point-shaving scandals before...I'm not aware of any successful lawsuits against any of the major sports leagues or NCAA by disenfranchised gamblers. Gotta wonder if anyone filed suit after Tim Donegy(sp?) was caught. I think they had specific games on him didn't they? and don't call me Shirley
PromoTheRobot Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 If a Pats* fan ever claims this proves they didn't cheat, punch them in the face. PTR
billsfan89 Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 I think it was acknowledged that the Pats* cheated but that since both teams were trying to win so that it wasn't an actionable position by the court (Had the Jets taken a dive I think that they would have been legal action taken). It would have set too dangerous a precedent Pats* are still D-Bags.
The_Philster Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 If a Pats* fan ever claims this proves they didn't cheat, punch them in the face. PTR Wouldn't you automatically punch them in the face just for being a Pats* fan, though?
justnzane Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 It seems the court is simply saying that the teams provided the entertainment that was promised by the ticket, but I wonder what would have happened if the case was brought against the Patriots by somebody that legally bet on the game and lost money. So, in the eyes of our courts the NFL=WWE
Recommended Posts