Hey, the outcome may be absurd, but maybe the NFL shouldn't be so stupid in setting up punishments. Most of the punishments also escalate with repeat offenses, so it's not like your example holds up. Further, the agreement between the players and the NFL isn't the agreement between the NFL and the team owners, so the punishments towards organizations and their owners could get significantly worse if they tried to do what you suggest (notice the Pats still got a huge fine and lost draft picks, etc). So your example of a league run wild wouldn't happen.
Brady Beats NFL(OT)
- Thread starter PSUriseANDfire
- Start date
Hey, the outcome may be absurd, but maybe the NFL shouldn't be so stupid in setting up punishments. Most of the punishments also escalate with repeat offenses, so it's not like your example holds up. Further, the agreement between the players and the NFL isn't the agreement between the NFL and the team owners, so the punishments towards organizations and their owners could get significantly worse if they tried to do what you suggest (notice the Pats still got a huge fine and lost draft picks, etc). So your example of a league run wild wouldn't happen.
Eqipment tampering is a $100,000 fine. It's in the NFL rules. Kraft paid a million dollars and gave up a first round pick.
Just so you know I'm a Steelers fan.
The problem here is Brady and The Patriots are repeat offenders and THAT is what Goodell used to levy the suspension. He was going for the head of the snake to send a message and this judge just cut off Goodell's hands, feet, arms, legs, and head. Goodell no longer holds any authority, and that is bad... very bad.
The NFLPA and The NFL entered into the agreement knowing the commissioner could levy fines and suspensions (per the commissioner's digression) if the commissioner finds the players actions are detrimental to the league, the judge just ruled 'that part of the CBA is no longer valid'. What a joke. I wonder how much time he gets in bed with Giselle.
The NFLPA and The NFL entered into the agreement knowing the commissioner could levy fines and suspensions (per the commissioner's digression) if the commissioner finds the players actions are detrimental to the league, the judge just ruled 'that part of the CBA is no longer valid'. What a joke. I wonder how much time he gets in bed with Giselle.
You continue to show the ignorance most people have with this situation...."I hate the Patriots and they get away with everything".
Now I realize that success breeds contempt but learning the facts is a wonderful. It continues to astound me that this fan base can only selectively apply these lessons.
Basically Berman ruled that the NFL failed to show that it applied Article 46 of the CBA in a fair and consistent way.
Goodell denied a request by the NFLPA attorneys to question the NFL counsel who edited the Well report and access to the leagues investigative notes. As attorney Michael McCann stated "...if Brady can't confront an accuser and study the evidence used to punish him, how can he effectively defend against the accusers accusations and the implicating evidence."
He goes on: "While Article 46 permits Goodell to serve as arbitrator for player appeals, Judge Berman noted that the 'law of shop' - which compels consistency and fairness is arbitration awards - bars Goodell from rendering a decision that may been compromised by bias. Also, Brady, unlike participants in normal arbitrations, lacked the ability to change the arbitrator even if he could show Goodell was biased".
So at the end of the day, the NFL has fumbled this whole thing, from leaking false and damaging information on the state of the balls to incite public opinion to continuing the saga by actually being stupid enough to appeal yesterday's decision.
I can only hope for the good of the NFL and its players that this is the beginning of the end for this NFL commish...
MA - I typically don't have an issue with you... but your response to me is about to change that. I haven't posted much on this at all, yet I get a 'You continue to show the ignorance'. How, specifically, have I shown 'continued ignorance'? I know you love The Patriots, and maybe, just maybe you are the one with the jaded glasses?
How can Goodell 'apply Article 46 of the CBA in a fair and consistent way' when this is the first time a player has been penalized for these actions? Really the sanctimonious need to step down off their high-horses and come back to reality.
It is well known throughout the league that The Patriots 'skirt' the edge of the rules, and they have stepped over that edge a number of times. Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation. If he had nothing to hide, why not cooperate? Answer - Tommy Boy thinks he is above The NFL and is a golden child. I've never a once in my life wished for a player to suffer a career ending injury, Brady is 'skirting' that edge.
You make a fair point, I made this post personal by wording it poorly. I was trying to say that the views outside of New England continue to show ignorance to the facts of the ruling. I apologize for the personal shot, that was out of line.
And you are correct, this is the first time a player has been penalized for these actions...and that is part of the problem. See the reference in the Berman ruling to the New York Jets incident where they used illegal balls for kicking. The equipment folks put in the illegal balls, and Jay Feely was not implicated even though he may have been 'generally aware' of such actions and was in a position to best benefit from the equipment folks actions. The team was fined and no players were suspended. No draft picks were taken from the team. How is that consistent for basically the same offense?
As for Brady 'destroying his phone', this again was misrepresented to incite opinions by Goodell with his appeal ruling. He upgraded his phone and got rid of his phone SIM card for personal security reasons. He offered to turn over records of all communications and Wells assured him that this was not necessary. He offered again to Goodell at his appeal and Goodell said no, they didn't want to 'take the time to do the investigating'. Really? Isn't that their responsibility? And buried at the end that same appeals ruling when Goodell suddenly added Brady's 'failure to cooperate' as causation for rejecting the appeal because he 'destroyed his phone' was a note that he did offer to supply all records that would easily have revealed and inappropriate communications if the NFL wanted to bother to do a proper investigation.
Like many of us Penn State fans that wished the rest of the country took the time to educate themselves on the facts of the Jerry Sandusky case before blasting an entire Penn State community, New England fans feel the same. Not trying to compare the two as one is clearly more egregious than the other, just comparing the national reactions.
Especially when the NFL's comclusion was that "it is more likely than not he was at least generally aware." You had better be a lot more secure in your conclusion if you are going to suspend someone for 25% of the season for what is supposed to be a $25,000 fine.
My question is, does the suspended/fired equipment manager have any legal grounds?
Well, "more likely than not" is actually the appropriate standard of proof per the agreement.
As for the equipment manager, very unlikely he has any legal grounds. Certainly not based on this recent ruling, as the ruling had nothing to do with whether the Pats or equipment managers were innocent of anything.
You have to be in dreamland, and some of you are, if you ever believed that Tom Brady, the chosen one, was ever going to miss an NFL game of real meaning because of a deflated ball.
This little soap opera for America's most stupid was played to keep the NFL in the news while the playing field on Sundays was empty.
And down the worm hole we go...
N i t t a n y A m e r i c a
This little soap opera for America's most stupid was played to keep the NFL in the news while the playing field on Sundays was empty.
And down the worm hole we go...
N i t t a n y A m e r i c a
More likely than not that someone actually tampered with equipment or more likely than not was generally aware that soneone else tampered with the equipment? I just think that more likely than not is a pretty weak standard. If they ever change the penalty for tampering to a 25% season suspension, I sure as heck hope they raise the standard of proof as well.
If the NFL wants to keep jerking people around and going down the worm hole, then BANG, anti - trust will solve all their problems.
We're in the 21st Century now. Never been easier to move the football when someone starts in with all their bullsh!t agitation.
N i t t a n y A m e r i c a
We're in the 21st Century now. Never been easier to move the football when someone starts in with all their bullsh!t agitation.
N i t t a n y A m e r i c a
Similar threads
