Mr. WEO Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 and ill reiterate again, the flip side of that coin is that it hasnt ever been suspended for. What is the specific policy regarding this? Anyone know offhand?
Kelly the Dog Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 and ill reiterate again, the flip side of that coin is that it hasnt ever been suspended for. They significantly changed the rules before the incident in question happened, making it much easier for the Commish to use those powers.
thebandit27 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 and ill reiterate again, the flip side of that coin is that it hasnt ever been suspended for. To which I ask the question: what violation of the rules regarding conduct detrimental to the team has been acted upon since the policy was instituted in December of 2014? I don't believe precedent is available here.
dave mcbride Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) What I think you're missing from my POV and apparently from the league's, is that you are saying this is WAY too much for letting air out of a ball. But I agree with you, and the league agrees with you IMO. That is why I said if he just let air out of a ball, he would have just got a $50K fine or whatever. But that is not what he did. At all. So how can you argue that point. It's not about letting air out of a ball on the sidelines. The stuff you guys are equating his penalty to, and former fines and suspensions to. I think Roger Goodell would agree with you 100% on that. I do myself. But that is not at all what happened here. Goodell equated an element of PED use very eloquently. When a guy does a little thing wrong a few times, he is suspended for a few games. If he tries to MASK the pee in a cup NFL procedure, he gets suspended for it. Wrong, I think: if he masks it, he is assumed to be guilty of the suspected offense and gets the basic penalty for said offense. It is not doubled simply because he masked it. If he doesn't mask it and gets caught, the penalty is the same, and if he masks it and gets caught anyway, I'm pretty sure it's still the same. Ontarrio Smith was suspended for a full year because of the whizzinator, but he would have gotten that penalty anyway because it was his third offense. They didn't increase the penalty because of the device. Edited July 30, 2015 by dave mcbride
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Because that is how Goodell explained ONE element of his reasoning on why he did what he did. Please read the last five pages of his report. It will take five minutes. You guys arguing this should read the whole thing and then draw conclusions and make your points. ive read through at this point, and frankly, dont agree with goodell using PEDs as the framework. its a very specific and negotiated area of the CBA, and this has its own separate set of guidelines. should stick'em, greasing jerseys, noise, illegal communication, and spy gate all be framed through PEDs suddenly? id venture the players when negotiating PED punishments may have viewed it differently if they thought it would be applied to every rule violation. do we add an extra 5 yards on the guy that holds but denies it to the refs because of PEDs too? (this last bit obviously sarcastic) and ill edit because as dave mentions, i only recall it being an auto-fail, not an escalation on top of the fail. Edited July 30, 2015 by NoSaint
K-9 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 In the CBA it is spelled out that organizations, not players, are penalized for equipment infranctions. So if it is determined that a player or players have vaseline on their jerseys the organization and not the players would be held responsible. In the CBA, it is also spelled out that players are penalized for conduct detrimental, which is what Brady is being punished for. The rule infraction that was alledgely breached had to do with equipment tampering. The entity responsible for those types of infractions are the teams, not the players involved. When it was learned that there was "stickum" on the balls in a San Diego game the organizatiion was held responsible and fined $25,000, with no penalty for the players involved, most noteworthy the qb. When Atlanta was found to heat balls in a cold weather game the organization was penalized (I believe) $25,000. No players were penalized. If you read Goodell's report, you'd know why these other cases don't apply in Brady's case. You already know the organization was fined for their involvement. You and No Saint have exhibited a great deal of wisdom and good judgment in this manufactured fiasco. In my view the source of the excessive and irrational response to the ball issue is the collective resentment by the other organizations towards the Patriots. Tom Brady is being steamrolled not for what he did or didn't do but because he is associated with the most successful franchise in the league. Manufactured fiasco? Interesting choice of words, but yeah, Brady, Jastremski, and McNally certainly succeeded in manufacturing it. But the idea that the league had it out for the "most successful franchise in the league" is the height of speciousness. Ridiculous really. Tom Brady is being punished for the very reasons Goodell laid out in his report. You , No Saint and I have repeatedly made the point that Goodell is egregeously acting outside the norm for handling this type of infraction with his multi-million $$$ flawed investigation and with his excessive punishment that doesn't come close to matching the nature of the infraction. Again, the "nature of the infraction" is conduct detrimental and AGAIN, the CBA allows the commissioner great leeway in levying punishments in this regard. We'll know whether or not a judge agrees Goodell was "egregious" but on the face of it alone, this case establishes a new precedent so one can't say he acted "outside the norm" or in an egregious fashion. I am continually amazed that people can be so cavalier about Brady's behavior throughout the entire proceeding. Saying he should just get off with a fine opens the door for all kinds of cheating scandals in the future, where players can act with impunity and then choose not to cooperate in investigations because its really no big deal. Open season on the integrity of the game. Nice. GO BILLS!!!
Wayne Cubed Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 To which I ask the question: what violation of the rules regarding conduct detrimental to the team has been acted upon since the policy was instituted in December of 2014? I don't believe precedent is available here. Which is what I said earlier in the thread. There isn't precedent until someone is actually suspended for it. But the counter argument for that is maybe the NFL hadn't defined specifically what kind of punishment this would receive. Then again, the NFL has always been relatively vague at what infractions will get what suspensions. I am continually amazed that people can be so cavalier about Brady's behavior throughout the entire proceeding. Saying he should just get off with a fine opens the door for all kinds of cheating scandals in the future, where players can act with impunity and then choose not to cooperate in investigations because its really no big deal. Open season on the integrity of the game. Nice. GO BILLS!!! Not only that the new Player Personal Conduct Policy spells is out even more. Which only took effect in December 2014. So again, none of these others cases apply to Bradys.
thebandit27 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 What is the specific policy regarding this? Anyone know offhand? I don't believe that the written document is available on the web, but here's what we can cobble together: Rules Enforcement Policy Personal Conduct Policy Compliance Plan I believe that the pertinent section of the Personal Conduct Policy is "Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players". I further believe--based on the NFL Rules Enforcement (linked above)--that the Compliance Plan outlines the requirements placed upon league employees. It states that full cooperation is mandatory in any investigation. I'm not 100% sure of the applicability of all of the above, so you may choose to seek a 2nd opinion.
Mr. WEO Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Goodell suspended Hargrove for, essentially, lying to him--I.e. "non-cooperation". He got 8 games. This was later reduced to....zero by Tagliobu, was it not?
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 And in the lather rinse repeat department, why would the league intentionally sabotage its most successful franchise and one of its biggest stars? What's in it for NFL, Inc., NFL Enterprises, Inc., etc.? Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the league's public image, its business relations and future marketing opportunities?
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I am continually amazed that people can be so cavalier about Brady's behavior throughout the entire proceeding. Saying he should just get off with a fine opens the door for all kinds of cheating scandals in the future, where players can act with impunity and then choose not to cooperate in investigations because its really no big deal. Open season on the integrity of the game. Nice. GO BILLS!!! the league has made it decades, and is at the height of its popularity without having had to make an example of this issue. i dont think brady being punished in line with previous offenses is suddenly the item that brings down this delicate house of cards you portray.
Wayne Cubed Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 If it the arguement of some that because no one has been suspended for this before that Brady shouldn't be suspended? To that I say, no player was ever suspended for violating the personal conduct of the league until the league wrote the policy and suspended the first player. Should he have not been suspended because no player was before?
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Goodell suspended Hargrove for, essentially, lying to him--I.e. "non-cooperation". He got 8 games. This was later reduced to....zero by Tagliobu, was it not? yup. under the guise that no one had ever in 40 years been suspended for it despite it being a common offense. heck, i even mentioned the brett favre refusal to turn in his phone and lying about his texts that i stumbled across this morning. $50k fine for thumbing his nose at the investigative process. If it the arguement of some that because no one has been suspended for this before that Brady shouldn't be suspended? To that I say, no player was ever suspended for violating the personal conduct of the league until the league wrote the policy and suspended the first player. Should he have not been suspended because no player was before? i dont think its totally open and shut here by any means, but im not sure how you miss in your very own post writing that they wrote a new policy and adopted it before the first suspension. how in the world do you miss that major piece of your own argument? whether the court will require it here, i dont know, but thats kind of the heart of the non-notification issue that the nflpa is arguing. if youve never had the policy in place that non-cooperation is suspension, the league needs to create that before acting on it. ive been saying for months that it blows my mind that the league doesnt have an open and shut "2 games for not turning over requested documents including X, Y or Z" if they wanted to act on this with players. Edited July 30, 2015 by NoSaint
BuffaloHokie13 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Wrong, I think: if he masks it, he is assumed to be guilty of the suspected offense and gets the basic penalty for said offense. It is not doubled simply because he masked it. If he doesn't mask it and gets caught, the penalty is the same, and if he masks it and gets caught anyway, I'm pretty sure it's still the same. Ontarrio Smith was suspended for a full year because of the whizzinator, but he would have gotten that penalty anyway because it was his third offense. They didn't increase the penalty because of the device. I thought Goodell's appeal denial said specifically that 1st offenses for a substance not even proven to give an advantage (which seems appropriate since the accusation is a deliberate violation of the rules, but it's impact is debatable) is 4 games, and a masking agent bumps that to 6 games.
K-9 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 if asked that last week, i think nearly 100% of this board wouldve said it was obviously equipment tampering and nonparticipation in the investigation. now suddenly we have PEDs and conduct detrimental to the league as regular talking points. Does it really matter that we now have the actual language used by the commissioner himself? I welcome the clarity. As for arguing equipment tampering all along, I can't disagree more. I've always felt that was more of a sideshow along with "the science" as I've said many times here. The non-cooperation and lying were always gonna be the main focal points and the far more egregious conduct. Rightfully so, too. The comparison to PEDs makes sense as a starting point for the commissioner to draw comparable punishment levels. I'd be surprised if that wasn't looked on favorably by the court. GO BILLS!!!
thebandit27 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Goodell suspended Hargrove for, essentially, lying to him--I.e. "non-cooperation". He got 8 games. This was later reduced to....zero by Tagliobu, was it not? yup. under the guise that no one had ever in 40 years been suspended for it despite it being a common offense. heck, i even mentioned the brett favre refusal to turn in his phone and lying about his texts that i stumbled across this morning. $50k fine for thumbing his nose at the investigative process. That was a different policy and a different CBA. I don't even think the NFL had a written policy regarding the integrity of the game, and I know they didn't have the Personal Conduct Policy that was ratified at the end of last year. So again, where is the precedent for a player being suspended according to the current policy?
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Goodell suspended Hargrove for, essentially, lying to him--I.e. "non-cooperation". He got 8 games. This was later reduced to....zero by Tagliobu, was it not? Tags reduced Hargrove's and other player's suspensions on the grounds they were following the code established by the team and the coaching staff, ie they had little choice but to follow orders to fit into the club. " Although I vacate all suspensions, I fully considered but ultimately rejected reducing the suspensions to fines of varying degrees for Hargrove, Smith and Vilma. My affirmation of Commissioner Goodell's findings could certainly justify the issuance of fines. However ... this entire case has been contaminated by the coaches and others in the Saints organization" That doesn't hold water in Tommy Boy's case, because the league ruled that he was the primary orchestrator of the cheating and was the one who contaminated the investigation by not cooperating and lying.
Doc Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 we are saying the same thing. they wanted doty, didn't get him and it got kicked back to ny where Rog went to in the first place the Brady*** end around lost NFL wins first round, as Brady court battle sent to New York http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/nfl-wins-first-round--as-brady-court-battle-sent-to-new-york-143220864.html So much for hoping David "in the union's pocket" Doty would save him.
Wayne Cubed Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) yup. under the guise that no one had ever in 40 years been suspended for it despite it being a common offense. heck, i even mentioned the brett favre refusal to turn in his phone and lying about his texts that i stumbled across this morning. $50k fine for thumbing his nose at the investigative process. i dont think its totally open and shut here by any means, but im not sure how you miss in your very own post writing that they wrote a new policy and adopted it before the first suspension. how in the world do you miss that major piece of your own argument? whether the court will require it here, i dont know, but thats kind of the heart of the non-notification issue that the nflpa is arguing. if youve never had the policy in place that non-cooperation is suspension, the league needs to create that before acting on it. Right and they just adopted a new Personel Condict Policy in December 2014. The ball deflation happened a month later. Edit: not to mention the NFL Compliance policy that bandit linked to that came out in July 2014. Edited July 30, 2015 by Wayne Cubed
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Right and they just adopted a new Personel Condict Policy in December 2014. The ball deflation happened a month later. and can you present the changes that specifically address this topic made in december? just that it was new doesnt mean you throw out 50 years of precedent and the league can suddenly do anything it wants with no regard to the "fair and consistent" punishment of players. if im missing specific changes to the investigative process or equipment tampering, im all ears, and like to think ive been receptive to feedback that cuts against it. heck, id much prefer brady sits a month, but will still argue what i think "fair" here.
Recommended Posts