Mr. WEO Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Because they didn't expect the Patriots to actually take them into a bathroom and alter them. Anderson didn't know anything about that. There was no sting or no expectation of any real wrongdoing. McNally sometimes asks the Refs if it is okay for him to take the balls to the field and they sometimes allow it if another Ref is there. But this time he just took them and Anderson yelled "He's not supposed to do that." But there was no suggestion or worry of any big conspiracy at that point. Well, how did the refs think they were doing it. They were told by the Colts that it was happening, obviously it had to be after the refs signed off on the pressure. So he says "he's not supposed to do that, and yet he doesn't check for tampering a day after the Colts told him they were deflating? Read NoSaints post above.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Well, how did the refs think they were doing it. They were told by the Colts that it was happening, obviously it had to be after the refs signed off on the pressure. So he says "he's not supposed to do that, and yet he doesn't check for tampering a day after the Colts told him they were deflating? Read NoSaints post above. Because it wasn't a sting and they didn't take it seriously. Which is what Wells said.
Mr. WEO Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Because it wasn't a sting and they didn't take it seriously. Which is what Wells said. Yes, we read that. So how did Jackson's "souvenir" ball suddenly end up triggering a halftime roundup of all of the pats game? Why the sudden interest in the NE balls if before the game they refs/NFL didn't really care about deflation?
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Yes, we read that. So how did Jackson's "souvenir" ball suddenly end up triggering a halftime roundup of all of the pats game? Why the sudden interest in the NE balls if before the game they refs/NFL didn't really care about deflation? It's not they didn't care about deflation at all. It's that they didn't expect a team to do what they did. That probably never crossed their minds. Plus the ball they were handed after the interception was two pounds under when they weighed it, so they weighed the other ones and they were all under.
MattM Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 It's kind of funny that there are so many here admitting that the Pats* intentionally deflated footballs (presumably for some kind of advantage, at least in their mind (and, the fumble data would show, in reality), otherwise why do it?), and yet are still defending them, spinning and twisting to find any reason to argue that what happened to them (being punished for cheating after being caught in two of the biggest cheating scandals in recent years, if not NFL history, and being suspected of much more) is not fair. Amazing stuff....
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Why do you think that Goodell hasn't made a ruling on the appeal yet? He already knows that the NFLPA is going to challenge any suspension. What is the point of delaying a ruling? What new information is there to be had? Regardless what side of the issue one is on this delay is baffling, at least to me it is. If it gets to a court or arbitrator the league is going to be asked what were the PSIs of ball #1 #2 #3 etc when the game started. The league's response is we don't know because we didn't record it. Then they are going to be asked what air gauge was used on each particular ball because different gauges give different readings. Their response is we don't know because we didn't note it. This saga is turning out to be a fiasco. I think if he reduces it to 2 games then the NFLPA may accept this. They have a reputation to uphold, as they too have to protect the Shield. Rules have been broken. I am sure a 15 year vet Brady* knows the difference in an under inflated ball. Well, how did the refs think they were doing it. They were told by the Colts that it was happening, obviously it had to be after the refs signed off on the pressure. So he says "he's not supposed to do that, and yet he doesn't check for tampering a day after the Colts told him they were deflating? Read NoSaints post above. maybe the Refs need to follow the ball boys into the bathroom before they leave for the field.
JohnC Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 I think if he reduces it to 2 games then the NFLPA may accept this. They have a reputation to uphold, as they too have to protect the Shield. The NFLPA has made it abundantly clear that they will take this case to court if there is any suspension. The "Shield" as you have stated is very much tarnished when it comes to handling disciplinary cases. Goodell lied in the Ray Rice case when he increased the punishment on the basis he discovered additional facts when the arbitrator judged that he did not. The increase in punishment by him was in response to the public outcry and not to the facts of the case. Goodell's ruling on Hardy was altered by an arbitrator because he didn't stay within the punishment guidelines that were established. He demonstrated that he makes things up as he goes along so he won't look bad instead of dealing with the facts of a particular case and the guidelines that apply to the particular case. His rulings are often inconsistent and are based on how he thinks he will be perceived instead of looking at the merits of the case at hand. When Goodell was challenged by Vilma his punishment was overturned by the designated arbitrator. Associated with that case in hindsight the bountygate fiasco in New Orleans became an exaggerated issue because he was more concerned with how he looked than objectively examining what really happened. The "shield" that Roger Goodell is wearing is not a very polished and shining shield. Long before this ridiculous case got out of hand it had a lot of stinky "shiiit" on it.
Mr. WEO Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 It's not they didn't care about deflation at all. It's that they didn't expect a team to do what they did. That probably never crossed their minds. Plus the ball they were handed after the interception was two pounds under when they weighed it, so they weighed the other ones and they were all under. They were told by the Colts the day before the game that NE was deflating balls. Wells even says this. How could it not cross their minds that NE were defalting balls? That makes no sense. Why didn't the Colts equipment guy not just take Jackson's intercepted ball and put it away for him for after the game as his souvenir? It's kind of funny that there are so many here admitting that the Pats* intentionally deflated footballs (presumably for some kind of advantage, at least in their mind (and, the fumble data would show, in reality), otherwise why do it?), and yet are still defending them, spinning and twisting to find any reason to argue that what happened to them (being punished for cheating after being caught in two of the biggest cheating scandals in recent years, if not NFL history, and being suspected of much more) is not fair. Amazing stuff.... It's amazing you can red all of these posts and still have no idea what is being discussed.
dave mcbride Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Because it wasn't a sting and they didn't take it seriously. Which is what Wells said. Of course it was a sting using any reasonable definition of the term. I think the mistake you're making is that it's always a pejorative term. It's not; sometimes stings are good for society. This has turned out to be something of a botched sting. Florio's latest info: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/22/settlement-talks-have-occurred-in-brady-case/ . If this is true, then the NFL counsel is telling Goodell that there is an excellent chance that his decision will be overturned in court.
thebandit27 Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Of course it was a sting using any reasonable definition of the term. I think the mistake you're making is that it's always a pejorative term. It's not; sometimes stings are good for society. This has turned out to be something of a botched sting. Florio's latest info: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/22/settlement-talks-have-occurred-in-brady-case/ . If this is true, then the NFL counsel is telling Goodell that there is an excellent chance that his decision will be overturned in court. A chance...not necessarily an excellent one.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Of course it was a sting using any reasonable definition of the term. I think the mistake you're making is that it's always a pejorative term. It's not; sometimes stings are good for society. This has turned out to be something of a botched sting. Florio's latest info: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/22/settlement-talks-have-occurred-in-brady-case/ . If this is true, then the NFL counsel is telling Goodell that there is an excellent chance that his decision will be overturned in court. Per the source, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is being pushed by a small handful of influential owners to hold firm on the four-game suspension. nice If this goes to court - shouldn't the "prosecution" bring up all verified cheating and cheating allegations as a measuring stick per-say showing the continued path this team has led over the Brady* years and when Brady lies he's held accountable? IMHO - There is no way in hell the two deflaters did this on their own!!! Edited July 23, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) To be perfectly honest, if Brady's suspension gets lifted completely I am boycotting any game which has the Patriots in it, and I urge others to do the same. The vast preponderance of evidence is that Tom Brady minorly cheated, and then tried to help cover his ass. A five month independent report found records to support this. I'd agree it was a stiff penalty, and of Brady was arguing that it was too stiff for something that was typically punished with fines I'd be less upset. But he is demanding innocence, and if this gets cleared it sends a message as clear as day: If you are a star and you cheat on the field in a way that may effect games, you get off scott free. Journalists will flock to your defense and call the charges outrageous. If you're a journeyman, who commits a misdemeanor outside of the game such as drag racing, doing some weed to help your concussion or being an !@#$ to a teammate? God help you. And the idea that they might get away with it, because the NFLPA dislikes a condition they agreed to in exchange for more money...it's despicable. Edited July 23, 2015 by WhitewalkerInPhilly
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 They were told by the Colts the day before the game that NE was deflating balls. Wells even says this. How could it not cross their minds that NE were defalting balls? That makes no sense. Why didn't the Colts equipment guy not just take Jackson's intercepted ball and put it away for him for after the game as his souvenir? It's amazing you can red all of these posts and still have no idea what is being discussed. Not that they may not have deflated balls but that they stole all of them and took them to a bathroom and deflated all of them in ten minutes since he last saw them. He's preparing for the championship game. He would have no inkling that it was McNally doing it. It probably never occurred to him. I assume he would think anyone could deflate a ball on the sidelines with a needle. Of course it was a sting using any reasonable definition of the term. I think the mistake you're making is that it's always a pejorative term. It's not; sometimes stings are good for society. This has turned out to be something of a botched sting. Florio's latest info: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/22/settlement-talks-have-occurred-in-brady-case/ . If this is true, then the NFL counsel is telling Goodell that there is an excellent chance that his decision will be overturned in court. Explain why you think it was a sting.
Mr. WEO Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Not that they may not have deflated balls but that they stole all of them and took them to a bathroom and deflated all of them in ten minutes since he last saw them. He's preparing for the championship game. He would have no inkling that it was McNally doing it. It probably never occurred to him. I assume he would think anyone could deflate a ball on the sidelines with a needle. Explain why you think it was a sting. He would assume it was being done somewhere, somehow before kickoff, wouldn't he? It doesn't matter who he thought might be doing it or where---he knew the complaint was that they were doing it. So why didn't he or the league go to the pats before the game and tell them to knock it off--or even followup on the Colts well-founded concern? Why does none of this make any sense to you?
Nanker Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 I'm all for lifting his suspension providing that he is required to throw left handed for the entire season.
Matt in KC Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 He would assume it was being done somewhere, somehow before kickoff, wouldn't he? It doesn't matter who he thought might be doing it or where---he knew the complaint was that they were doing it. So why didn't he or the league go to the pats before the game and tell them to knock it off--or even followup on the Colts well-founded concern? Why does none of this make any sense to you? Why is the fact that there wasn't perfect preventative policing and follow-up investigation so important to you? I think almost everyone would concede those, but that is .01% of the story, and in no way excuses the Pats' actions or negates the validity of the punishments. I think it Brady was caught red-handed (and still obstructed the investigation) he would have had a longer suspension.
dave mcbride Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Explain why you think it was a sting. First of all, I don't think stings are bad things, and you continue to seemingly think the term is pejorative. The fact that it was a sting isn't really the issue at all. The issue is the quality of it. Good stings involve having all of your ducks lined up in a row and your bases covered. The NFL's sting operation didn't. Anyway, to answer your question: the Colts and the Ravens tipped off the league prior to the game that the Pats were doctoring balls, yet the league let matters proceed as they ordinarily would. In the interest of game integrity (i.e. "the shield"), they should have done final measurements after the balls got to the sideline so that no deflated balls were used in a game--especially in a game as important as a championship game. Instead, they didn't, and only went after them afterward. The league acted in a premeditated fashion while feigning ignorance, allowing a crime to occur that they suspected would occur beforehand. They waited in order to catch the violator in the act red-handed; otherwise they would have a weaker case. If they had caught them before the game, it wouldn't have been as powerful. Happy to paste the OED definition of "sting" if you're interested. Trust me when I say that this was a sting -- at least according to the OED. Frankly, I have no idea why calling it a sting is remotely controversial. Contesting that it was one seems to me to be willfully contrarian. Edited July 23, 2015 by dave mcbride
Mr. WEO Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Why is the fact that there wasn't perfect preventative policing and follow-up investigation so important to you? I think almost everyone would concede those, but that is .01% of the story, and in no way excuses the Pats' actions or negates the validity of the punishments. I think it Brady was caught red-handed (and still obstructed the investigation) he would have had a longer suspension. We are discuusing whether this may have been a sting operation (soemone calimed this was a "stupid": idea), not whether Brady is guilty (that has been established). It's a discussion people are having. Feel free to join in. First of all, I don't think stings are bad things, and you continue to seemingly think the term is pejorative. The fact that it was a sting isn't really the issue at all. The issue is the quality of it. Good stings involve having all of your ducks lined up in a row and your bases covered. The NFL's sting operation didn't. Anyway, to answer your question: the Colts and the Ravens tipped off the league prior to the game that the Pats were doctoring balls, yet the league let matters proceed as they ordinarily would. In the interest of game integrity (i.e. "the shield"), they should have done final measurements after the balls got to the sideline so that no deflated balls were used in a game--especially in a game as important as a championship game. Instead, they didn't, and only went after them afterward. The league acted in a premeditated fashion while feigning ignorance, allowing a crime to occur that they suspected would occur beforehand. They waited in order to catch the violator in the act red-handed; otherwise they would have a weaker case. If they had caught them before the game, it wouldn't have been as powerful. Happy to paste the OED definition of "sting" if you're interested. Trust me when I say that this was a sting -- at least according to the OED. Frankly, I have no idea why calling it a sting is remotely controversial. Contesting that it was one seems to me to be willfully contrarian. Good post Dave. I doubt it will sink in though...
Matt in KC Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 We are discuusing whether this may have been a sting operation (soemone calimed this was a "stupid": idea), not whether Brady is guilty (that has been established). It's a discussion people are having. Feel free to join in. It clearly wasn't a sting operation. I think trying to answer what that term means answers the question pretty quickly. The refs followed normal protocol and only took steps they could (halftime measurements etc. when then thought something might be wrong in that specific game. I think the league and referees hear a lot of whining/finger pointing all the time and only took these extra steps when at least 3 things came together: 1 - Proactive message teams had complained about ball pressure 2- Balls leaving referee monitoring/control before the game ("He's not supposed to do that") 3 - Specific complaint ("this ball is too soft"). Even with those, they curtailed the measurement (Colts balls) etc. to deliver their main product, the second half of the game, on time. And even if it was a "sting operation" so what? This is still the approved process for applying discipline that is deserved; the Pats just don't like it.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 We are discuusing whether this may have been a sting operation (soemone calimed this was a "stupid": idea), not whether Brady is guilty (that has been established). It's a discussion people are having. Feel free to join in. Good post Dave. I doubt it will sink in though... I didn't say the idea that it was a sting was a stupid idea, I was referring to your harebrained idea that this was all a big conspiracy that the NFL planted and wanted and was good for business. The obvious answer is the easiest to believe. It was ten mlnutes before the championship game. Anderson was doing a lot of things. Actually the REASON that McNally was able to steal the balls was because Anderson left the officials room for a few minutes because he had extra duties. Then came back and they were missing but the game was starting soon so he went to the field and the game started. It just never occurred to him in that time they tool them to a bathroom. No sting.
Recommended Posts