Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Not really shocking for you Well, in fairness, we're missing the linchpin of our defense week 1, and anyone who think Brady isn't gonna come out of the gate on fire is just nuts. Good news is, there's winnable games after week 1 and 2. Bad news is, they'll be 0-2 in the AFC and behind the 8 ball early.
NoSaint Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Then you can't really make a statement like you did because it had no bearing whatsoever on this ruling. When would they have done this notifying? I really don't understand what you are referring to. Apologies if I'm missing something obvious. if they outlined, similar to the domestic violence policy or substance abuse policy changes as recent examples, that non participation in an investigation will be 2 games with ability to be modified as needed -- it would have gone a long way. likewise that a player could be subject to suspension for equipment violations. unfortunately, despite the leagues assertion that this was most similar to a steroid case, it simply wasnt and if they had the obvious policies needed in place they wouldnt have had to venture so wide for a comparable.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) I think one other aspect of all this gets overlooked. The rule about PSI and having the teams be in control of game balls all week was put into place, at the urging of Brady and Peyton, in order to allow the QB's play at the highest level they can achieve. They have control over PSI, they can scuff the balls all week, break them in to their liking. It seems like a poorly written rule, but the point of it was to allow each QB to 'customize' the game ball , within limits, to whatever suits them best. If you allow this, they should have more leway in PSI range. It's overblown because it's the Patriots and Brady. It's time to put this to rest and concentrate on more important things , like the regular season for our Bills.That is not true. The Brady and Manning thing preparing the balls had zero to do with PSI. Nothing. Nada. Not even remotely. Although I understand what you are saying, if you want to do away with psi rules altogether. Edited September 3, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
Rob's House Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Then you can't really make a statement like you did because it had no bearing whatsoever on this ruling. Pretty sure I can and did. I gave a disclaimer and said how I felt. If you want a legal analysis you can send me a check and I'll write you a brief.
PolishDave Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Because the 4 game suspension has been negated, does the league have the right to reissue a different penalty other than a 4 game suspension in this case?
NoSaint Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Because the 4 game suspension has been negated, does the league have the right to reissue a different penalty other than a 4 game suspension in this case? i believe they have burned their opportunity, and this one is done. they could appeal but theres no way they want this dragging further.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 He will always have his ring. And no matter what we beat up on Brady* for , no one can argue against his smarts. I wouldn't be surprised if he had reviewed this entire scenario with a lawyer well before getting those balls deflated. Given the possible benefit and the low possibility of a conviction, it is not unreasonable to expect he went into it with eyes more than wide open, He looked like the dimmest of wits when questioned initially about being a cheater. The fact that he's basically a corporate brand in and of himself allows him access to the best legal minds money can buy doesn't necessarily change that. At the end of the day, what starts with an issue about common sense, fair play, decency and emotion (OMG, he had his guy pull the balls and deflate them in an attempt to win football games???) boils down to two corporate heavyweights swinging heymakers in the courts. Money always talks. Whatevs.
Talley56 Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 On the bright side, we've established it's now okay to cheat. Go for it, Rex. Hey no, only the Patriots are allowed to cheat AND cover it up by getting rid of evidence.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 if they outlined, similar to the domestic violence policy or substance abuse policy changes as recent examples, that non participation in an investigation will be 2 games with ability to be modified as needed -- it would have gone a long way. likewise that a player could be subject to suspension for equipment violations. unfortunately, despite the leagues assertion that this was most similar to a steroid case, it simply wasnt and if they had the obvious policies needed in place they wouldnt have had to venture so wide for a comparable. To me that would be incredibly dumb. There is such a huge range of non participation and uncooperation that to put any kind of game limit on it would be futile and cause more trouble than it would help. You could go from slightly shading the truth to blatantly lying to actually forging documents to getting a guy named Eddie to help you persuade investigators.
PolishDave Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Has the league even done anything with their rules and practices to prevent something like this from being an issue again? Like why not have the league provide all the footballs for the game instead of having each team bring half? Isn't that a no-brainer?
NoSaint Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) To me that would be incredibly dumb. There is such a huge range of non participation and uncooperation that to put any kind of game limit on it would be futile and cause more trouble than it would help. You could go from slightly shading the truth to blatantly lying to actually forging documents to getting a guy named Eddie to help you persuade investigators. as opposed to the very limited scope of domestic violence? you could leave the exact length off, or vague but defining that it hasnt been suspended EVER but will be going forward is an important piece. Edited September 3, 2015 by NoSaint
PromoTheRobot Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Well, in fairness, we're missing the linchpin of our defense week 1, and anyone who think Brady isn't gonna come out of the gate on fire is just nuts. Good news is, there's winnable games after week 1 and 2. Bad news is, they'll be 0-2 in the AFC and behind the 8 ball early. That's the spirit. Go into games thinking you've already lost them. That's how you build a winner.
YoloinOhio Posted September 3, 2015 Author Posted September 3, 2015 Pretty sure Berman is saying Goodell went "rogue" @adbrandt: Money quote from Judge Berman: Commissioner Goodell may be said to have "dispensed his own brand of industrial justice."
JohnC Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 activist judge This is the court that the league ran to after its initial ruling on Brady. The judge and the court had a history of favorable arbitration and business rulings. Roger Goodell got rebuked by a court that he and his legal advisers selected
Garranimal Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 The two salient points made by the judge are as follows: Tom Brady didn't know he could be suspended for under inflating footballs. Tom Brady's people were not permitted access to talk to the report writer. By this logic, I think Marcel Dareus should IMMEDIATELY file with the NFL to have his suspension vacated. He didn't know he could be suspended for racing/driving like an idiot. Isn't the other central issue that there is a specified penalty in the article of the rule book pertaining to the inflation specs of the footballs? I think the legal issue here is that if you were caught with under-inflated footballs, you should be penalized as specified in the rulebook. To be admittedly overdramatic (and a bit silly), it is like being suspended for too many PI penalties.....called or otherwise. The rulebook and the officials have the authority to punish a specific amount for the given infraction, additonal after-the-fact punishments (like in the case of defenseless hits that incur additional fines/suspensions) are typically overturned because the punishment is completely subjective.
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Because the 4 game suspension has been negated, does the league have the right to reissue a different penalty other than a 4 game suspension in this case? No. Double jeopardy. That was shot down in the Ray Rice case.
PolishDave Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 No. Double jeopardy. That was shot down in the Ray Rice case. I know that double jeopardy applies to the American court system. But it also applies to the NFL handling its own business and penalties too?
BuffaninATL Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Watching ESPN....very interesting. They are strongly suggesting Greg Hardy will file an appeal of his 4 game suspension. The 90 day deadline to file an appeal on that suspension is tomorrow. What say you Dareus?
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Pretty sure Berman is saying Goodell went "rogue" @adbrandt: Money quote from Judge Berman: Commissioner Goodell may be said to have "dispensed his own brand of industrial justice." Uh...yeah. Read the CBA. Goodell is allowed to dispense his own brand of industrial justice. The NFLPA agreed to it. Not only that, there is no other "brand of justice" that Goodell can dispense. The CBA leaves discipline up to the sole discretion of the Commissioner. So Berman effectively rewrote the CBA to say that the Commissioner has no disciplinary authority. I know that double jeopardy applies to the American court system. But it also applies to the NFL handling its own business and penalties too? It's written in to the CBA that you can't be punished twice for the same offense, and it was affirmed in the Ray Rice case.
Recommended Posts