WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Well, I'm not shocked since it sounded like Berman was raking the NFL over the coals. But still... A) I'd rather see zero games than one for "failing to cooperate with the investigation" only to have us get the brunt of it week 2. It seemed like it might go that way for a while. B) The decision is about process and procedure. While I wildly disagree, this is nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Brady may not serve a suspension, but he is, in the eyes of the league, still guilty. Strip him from the hall of fame.
NoSaint Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I understand the legal argument the judge was making. It seems the NFL needs to have, in writing, every single possible forms of cheating and what those punishments are in order for it to hold up in a court of law. Do you how long that would take and what a waste of time and money it would be? not in the slightest the argument. the issue is that they have a long history with both non-cooperation and equipment violations and punished in a way that is outside precedent. hence they had to compare it to steroid users, and not people that have tampered with equipment (surely not the first) or lied to investigators (surely not the first). unless you think no one has ever done either of those things in the league.
Rob's House Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 . Because it's not obvious enough that you shouldn't steal the balls from the refs post-weigh in and deflate them? Smdh.... That's not it either. The league didn't conclude that he did that. They concluded it was likely that he was aware of it. The rules didn't provide for punishment for mere awareness of misconduct, not did it provide for punishment for noncooperation with an investigation. Those were the two things he was penalised for.
shrader Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Does the CBA explicitly forbid a team from hiring Jeff Gillooly?
Dibs Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 This is a real problem. So let me get this straight...you have to think of everything there is that could happen (even things that are not available yet or have not been dreamed of yet) and make sure you apply a punishment for each and everyone in order for it to stick? That's a bunch of bull!!! I don't think that driving a car onto the field would be covered. Perhaps if McCoy isn't quite healthy in week 1 he could do his RBing from behind the wheel. The legal system is a joke. There should be more focus on the intent of the laws and justice rather than the minutea of the language. Absolutely rediculous!
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 All I know is what I've heard in a few snippets so I could be wrong, but I thought the gist of the ruling was that the report only found that Brady was probably aware of misconduct and that the CBA doesn't provide for penalties for merely having general knowledge of misconduct. Except that it does. Because of the open-ended "conduct unbecoming" catchall. What's more, the player contracts specify it too. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he [...stuff releated to gambling or PEDs...] or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract. In short, the CBA provides for Goodell to do damn near anything he wants in disciplining players for "conduct detrimental." It's ridiculous, and Goodell's a complete ass, and I've said so since the Ray Rice case. But it's the CBA the NFLPA agreed to - Goodell was well within his rights and authority to suspend Brady if his "general awareness" harmed the integrity of the game and the league. Which is why this decision invalidates pretty much all of Goodell's discipline. I could even argue that the substance abuse policy is null and void under this decision: though the NFL has a substance abuse policy, nowhere in the CBA is the commissioner authorized to punish players for violating it.
HamSandwhich Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 That's not it either. The league didn't conclude that he did that. They concluded it was likely that he was aware of it. The rules didn't provide for punishment for mere awareness of misconduct, not did it provide for punishment for noncooperation with an investigation. Those were the two things he was penalised for. Again, so you're saying that the NFL has to come up with all conceivable ways that players can try give themselves and advantage and apply a punishment for each and every one? How ridiculous is that? So everyone gets a get out of jail free card as long as it's the first time it happened? Dumb dumb dumb
sodbuster Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I wonder if the outcome would have been any different if the league had a way to place him on paid suspension, rather than have him forfeit his game checks.
Mr. WEO Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 The NFL shot themsleves in the foot. The Pash issue weighed heavily in the Judge's thninking and decision. He was convinced Pash was an investigator in the "Wells investigation", but was not made available for examination nor were his notes or Wells. There is simply no excuse for this decision for the NFL. Just dumb, unless there is a reason they didn't want him questioned or there documents reviewed. The Judge's decision is surprising though.
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 not in the slightest the argument. the issue is that they have a long history with both non-cooperation and equipment violations and punished in a way that is outside precedent. hence they had to compare it to steroid users, and not people that have tampered with equipment (surely not the first) or lied to investigators (surely not the first). unless you think no one has ever done either of those things in the league. Really? What's the history of league discipline for tampering with in-game equipment? Don't even bother referring to the CBA, since you obviously haven't read it (it says exactly nothing about league discipline for equipment violations.)
YoloinOhio Posted September 3, 2015 Author Posted September 3, 2015 @Rachel__Nichols: NFL will appeal but confirms it won't seek a stay to keep Brady off the field while doing so. So: Brady plays, and #Deflategate never dies.
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Again, so you're saying that the NFL has to come up with all conceivable ways that players can try give themselves and advantage and apply a punishment for each and every one? How ridiculous is that? So everyone gets a get out of jail free card as long as it's the first time it happened? Dumb dumb dumb Yes. The crux of Berman's decision is lack of prior notice. which means that Goodell cannot punish first offenses for "conduct unbecoming." Even though he has the authority under the CBA.
fridge Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I think this is appropriate today. Get ready for week 2 Tommy. If this took place in 2015, Clements would have been flagged 15 yards, ejected, suspended the remainder of the season and fined an ungodly amount of money.
Rob's House Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 This is a real problem. So let me get this straight...you have to think of everything there is that could happen (even things that are not available yet or have not been dreamed of yet) and make sure you apply a punishment for each and everyone in order for it to stick? That's a bunch of bull!!! That's not it exactly, but think about it in terms of law. You can use broad language to encompass types of behavior without spelling out every detail as long as the prohibited conduct is reasonably identifiable by the rule, but you can't make a rule after the fact and punish someone accordingly. In law that's called ex post facto and it's unconstitutional. Or more simply, how can you break a rule that doesn't yet exist?
CountDorkula Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 If this took place in 2015, Clements would have been flagged 15 yards, ejected, suspended the remainder of the season and fined an ungodly amount of money. Well worth it.
YoloinOhio Posted September 3, 2015 Author Posted September 3, 2015 @SiriusXMNFL: Polian: It's always possible that he could serve a suspension in Dec/Jan if the 2nd circuit overturns this ruling but process moves slow.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 @SiriusXMNFL: Polian: It's always possible that he could serve a suspension in Dec/Jan if the 2nd circuit overturns this ruling but process moves slow. just in time for the playoffs!
YoloinOhio Posted September 3, 2015 Author Posted September 3, 2015 @SiriusXMNFL: Bill Polian: People who believe Brady is guilty will continue to believe that and the appeal process will take a long time. #TomBrady
Rob's House Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Except that it does. Because of the open-ended "conduct unbecoming" catchall. What's more, the player contracts specify it too. Now that's !@#$ing interesting. I'll have to ponder that one. My first inclination is to say there must be some standard - I mean, who's to say that wearing a Speedo at the beach isn't conduct unbecoming - but that's a tough one.
dubs Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) Well - I for one don't really care about the outcome or if Brady plays at all. For me - it's all about whether or not he cheated and IMO he obviously did. The second you cross that line, your accomplishments are diminished, IMO. Edited September 3, 2015 by dubs
Recommended Posts