papazoid Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 the judge is trying his utmost best to get these two parties to agree to a settlement by pointing out the holes in each of their cases. absent that, he will be forced to rule that the CBA is to be honored. NFL wins.
Beerball Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 You made the point that you believed the judge was grandstanding. How so? What questions has he asked (mostly to the league) that you find problematic and make you believe that the judge is behaving inappropriately. grandstanding in that he's making a point publicly. I think that his great preference is that the two sides settle and he's pushing the league by openly questioning their process. That may or not weigh in on his decision (if one is needed). He may well find that the commissioner acted using the "powers" granted under the CBA while he personally is uncomfortable with the process.
What a Tuel Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 All this talk about the CBA makes me dread negotiating a new one (2021?) and how stubborn the two sides may end up being.
plenzmd1 Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 grandstanding in that he's making a point publicly. I think that his great preference is that the two sides settle and he's pushing the league by openly questioning their process. That may or not weigh in on his decision (if one is needed). He may well find that the commissioner acted using the "powers" granted under the CBA while he personally is uncomfortable with the process. That is essentially what Lester Munson espoused in a clip I heard this morning, and he is usually a pretty sharp guy.
Pneumonic Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Determining if the league abided by a process that it was supposed to follow is a relevant issue. Having an authority to act does't equate with doing whatever you want regardless of the facts and regardless of the established guidelines. What you and many others are essentially saying is that having an authority to rule allows you to do whatever you want without challenge. The judge isn't buying that reasoning. There is no doubt that the boundaries of the law favor the league. But what the judge has to decide is did the league go beyond the expansive boundaries to nullify its own ruling. ^^^ This +1. Several times now the judge has stated that even though Goodell's authority has been collectively bargained it doesn't mean he an use it to violate federal law. Thanks for the response. I didn't hear the judge discredit the Wells report, just ask some tough questions in the limited public period, the theater of which I believe was to put pressure on the league to settle. Direct evidence is not required. Circumstantial evidence abounds. Given the "preponderance" threshold to find guilt is rather low, and their investigation was obstructed, I think they clearly succeeded. The main points related to Brady: > Texts, video (of the bathroom), air pressure readings, and McNally interviews all pointing to ongoing ball tampering ongoing, and in this case > Texts referencing Tom, Brady's calls and his testimony about them; destruction of only the critical phone; unbelievable testimony about pressure preference and the "two stooges," the autographed swag all point to Brady's involvement. It's enough for me (and most reasonable people I think), but I can agree we disagree. Dan Wetzel wrote-up a summary which highlight's the many issues the judge has with the NFL's case. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/deflate-gate-judge-hammers-nfl-s-case-against-tom-brady---your-honor-is-spot-on---defense-crows--192153861.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons&soc_trk=tw
Ouijaman Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 I think, would hope, they are too smart to believe what you suggest. How much they paying you?
K-9 Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Of course he does. But in determining that issue it is intertwined with the process in which the determination is made. The judge is directly asking the league what is your standard and what is your process. Their response can be boiled down to we have the authority in disciplinary matters to do whatever we want regardless of the facts and regardless of how prior cases were handled. The judge seems uncomfortable with their arrogant stance. Not surprised we disagree on the judge's purview here. If anyone but the commissioner of a sports league can determine what constitutes conduct detrimental, then there is absolutely no need for a commissioner's office in any sports league. There is a reason he has the authority granted by the owners and players. As to the bold text, what are the facts in this case? GO BILLS!!!
Matt in KC Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Dan Wetzel wrote-up a summary which highlight's the many issues the judge has with the NFL's case. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/deflate-gate-judge-hammers-nfl-s-case-against-tom-brady---your-honor-is-spot-on---defense-crows--192153861.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons&soc_trk=tw Thanks for the link. I am not surprised Berman is putting more pressure on the league, to pressure them to settle; they come to the court in a much stronger position with the CBA. My current assessment > 10% chance they settle > 20% chance the judge rules against the League > 70% chance the judge affirms the League's right to dictate punishment per the CBA, and that their actions were "good enough" in this case I started with the following, but the reports have shifted my opinion: > 25% Settle >2% Rule for Brady >73% Affirm Leagues punishment
Kelly the Dog Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Thanks for the link. I am not surprised Berman is putting more pressure on the league, to pressure them to settle; they come to the court in a much stronger position with the CBA. My current assessment > 10% chance they settle > 20% chance the judge rules against the League > 70% chance the judge affirms the League's right to dictate punishment per the CBA, and that their actions were "good enough" in this caseI started with the following, but the reports have shifted my opinion: > 25% Settle >2% Rule for Brady >73% Affirm Leagues punishment Agree. I think the judge is both trying to get them to settle and publicly scolding the league for mistakes they make and continue to make, but has no choice but to rule in the NFLs favor, simply due to the obvious- the Commish has the right granted to him by the CBA, it's very hard to overturn an arbitrator's ruling without gross negligence and these are all technicalities.
JohnC Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 grandstanding in that he's making a point publicly. I think that his great preference is that the two sides settle and he's pushing the league by openly questioning their process. That may or not weigh in on his decision (if one is needed). He may well find that the commissioner acted using the "powers" granted under the CBA while he personally is uncomfortable with the process. As you perceptively noted the judge is publicly putting pressure on the league which is in the dominant legal position to yield a little from their hardened position. He is doing it publicly in his court, an open court, by demonstrating that their position is not without flaws. I have said it many times in my posts that the league has a great deal of lattitude in disciplinary matters. The question becomes did it squander it's strong hand by acting way out of line.
The Big Cat Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) So there are parts of Johnny's rumor that are a bit confusing if true. - If the league was worried about getting egg on it's face from Belichick cheating again, why allow him to coach another year? Why not just say, "Bill after your Super Bowl win, it might be time to ride off into the sunset"? If anyone ever found out, which apparently someone has, the league would be left with even more egg on their face after they KNEW Belichick cheated again but allowed him to coach another season. That just seems a bit ridiculous. Also it doesn't invalidate the past 10 years of football, maybe it invalidates the Patriots** SB wins, but there were 7 other teams who won SB's. - Also, why choose Brady as the fall guy? Why not just pin it on the two idiots? Instead they pick one of the most popular athletes in the game, seems odd? This is not to say that Belichick knew nothing of what was going on, it wouldn't surprise me if he did. I just don't think there is some huge cover up and league conspiracy to let Bill !@#$ing Belichick coach one last season of football. Perhaps they tried to force him out and he refused. Wells Report and all the so-called witch-hunting came after the SB. It's easier to tuck away and make Brady the fall guy because if Bellicheat really has been pulling the strings all along, it discredits the last 15 years of professional football, during which time ONE team has been consistently in contention and during which time the brand rose to prominence WELL ahead of any other professional sport in the modern era. If it comes out that the Patriots* single-handedly (through Bellicheat) compromised the integrity of the last 15 earth shattering, ratings obliterating years, then the NFL stands to lose A LOT. Edited August 20, 2015 by The Big Cat
Mr. WEO Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Agree. I think the judge is both trying to get them to settle and publicly scolding the league for mistakes they make and continue to make, but has no choice but to rule in the NFLs favor, simply due to the obvious- the Commish has the right granted to him by the CBA, it's very hard to overturn an arbitrator's ruling without gross negligence and these are all technicalities. It's interesting how many here don't understand that the CBA and the ability of the Commissioner ot punish are not being challenged in court. The NFLPA (and Brady) are arguing that Goodell was not acting in an unbiasd manner when he punished. That would be a violation of the CBA. Whether you think the case is weak or not doesn't matter. This is their argument---not what you are claiming here. The fact that many of Goodell's recent suspensions have been reduced (or completely eliminated in Bountygate) should already have convinced you that his powers have limitations even under the current CBA.
JohnC Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Not surprised we disagree on the judge's purview here. If anyone but the commissioner of a sports league can determine what constitutes conduct detrimental, then there is absolutely no need for a commissioner's office in any sports league. There is a reason he has the authority granted by the owners and players. As to the bold text, what are the facts in this case? GO BILLS!!! There are few conclusive facts in this case. That's the point. Without wasting your time regarding the ball inflation levels the method of measurement was sloppy and their claimed science was not supportable or at the minimum couldn't be replicated. From what I have read on this case the judge is mostly focusing on the process of how the league handled the case. Other than giving lame answers to the judges pointed questions the league's fallback position is that it believes it has the authority to do whatever it wants and do it in the way it wants. For them the issue of fairness is not a consideration. The judge as demonstrated by pneumonic's link is not impressed with that arrogant response. http://sports.yahoo....tons&soc_trk=tw
Kelly the Dog Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 I It's interesting how many here don't understand that the CBA and the ability of the Commissioner ot punish are not being challenged in court. The NFLPA (and Brady) are arguing that Goodell was not acting in an unbiasd manner when he punished. That would be a violation of the CBA. Whether you think the case is weak or not doesn't matter. This is their argument---not what you are claiming here. The fact that many of Goodell's recent suspensions have been reduced (or completely eliminated in Bountygate) should already have convinced you that his powers have limitations even under the current CBA. They are indeed fighting in court over the rights that Goodell was or was not granted in the CBA. Whether he can punish players and not teams under the provision he is using, and several other things like that. What world are you living in?
K-9 Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 There are few conclusive facts in this case. That's the point. Without wasting your time regarding the ball inflation levels the method of measurement was sloppy and their claimed science was not supportable or at the minimum couldn't be replicated. From what I have read on this case the judge is mostly focusing on the process of how the league handled the case. Other than giving lame answers to the judges pointed questions the league's fallback position is that it believes it has the authority to do whatever it wants and do it in the way it wants. For them the issue of fairness is not a consideration. The judge as demonstrated by pneumonic's link is not impressed with that arrogant response. http://sports.yahoo....tons&soc_trk=tw OK, what are the few conclusive facts then? GO BILLS!!!
JohnC Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 OK, what are the few conclusive facts then? GO BILLS!!! That the Wells investigation was not competently done and not independently done.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 That the Wells investigation was not competently done and not independently done. You realize those are opinions, right?
K-9 Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 That the Wells investigation was not competently done and not independently done. That sounds like Kessler answering the question. But, his "opinion" aside, the question remains. GO BILLS!!!
Mr. WEO Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 I They are indeed fighting in court over the rights that Goodell was or was not granted in the CBA. Whether he can punish players and not teams under the provision he is using, and several other things like that. What world are you living in? This isn't true. The CBA is not being challenged. Goodell's application of it in this specific case is. I know you want to make it an all or nothing case (he can punish as he sees fit or he can't punish at all), but it's not. Revent history should tell you this.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) This isn't true. The CBA is not being challenged. Goodell's application of it in this specific case is. I know you want to make it an all or nothing case (he can punish as he sees fit or he can't punish at all), but it's not. Revent history should tell you this. His power in the CBA, and what he can do with it, is what is being challenged which is what I said. Recent history in reversing the cases is mostly irrelevant because in both of the cases used as examples the NFL changed the rules after the actual infraction and then tried to punish the player using those rules which weren't in effect at the time of the infraction. That is clearly wrong by the NFL and those were rightfully overturned. That is not at all what happened here. And I never said or wanted to make this an all or nothing case, he can punish as he sees fit. Never said anything to that case. I take everything individually and react to it. I think he oversteps his bounds all the time and have lambasted him for it here dozens of times Edited August 20, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
Recommended Posts