2015-2016 NFL Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

"Some kind of punishment" is maybe a fine, maybe, if the NFL could even reliably show that the balls were underinflated (they initially seemed unaware that ambient temperature affects pressure, and they used two different gauges and don't know which was used for which measurements). Missing a quarter of a season? Ridiculous, and exactly why he's been slapped down. Again.

 

If it was just about deflating footballs I would totally agree with you. The extra step of destroying the phone warrants a suspension IMO.

[Jenksismyhero]

Lets not forget the Patriots received a huge penalty. I think all things being equal that the end result is probably slightly harsh on the Patriots.

 

(edit)

 

You also keep failing to recognize that never before had anyone who was caught tampering with footballs been given anything close to this harsh of a penalty. Even if it was just 1 game I think the NFL probably wins here. But 4 games was pretty ridiculous when the other instances were mere warning or fines.

 

see above

[Balta1701]

But again, you're asking the NFL to come up with language in a CBA for every potential violation by a player. That's an impossible task, hence the catch all provision the commissioner was given by the players. I can understand reigning that power in when it's not applied fairly or justly, but I don't see that here. I can totally understand and get behind the rationale of comparing this situation to a 1st time steroid user - you tried to cheat and even though it didn't result in wins/losses, you still tried and got caught. And just because I don't have direct proof of it, I have circumstantial evidence, including your deliberate attempt to destroy evidence that the NFL wanted for its investigation.

Easy language could have been written giving the NFL the authority to suspend players and coaches for acts that violate the competitive rules of the game or something like that.

[The Gooch]

If it was just about deflating footballs I would totally agree with you. The extra step of destroying the phone warrants a suspension IMO.

 

They shouldn't have the right to look at his phone. Look at what happened when he gave up his other phone, texts leaked about his pool and some stuff he said about Peyton Manning. Maybe he was trying to hide something on the phone and it wasn't even related to deflated footballs. He shouldn't be suspended for not giving up his phone. I wouldn't give my phone to my boss.

[Jenksismyhero]

Easy language could have been written giving the NFL the authority to suspend players and coaches for acts that violate the competitive rules of the game or something like that.

 

And there wouldn't be an argument that that's too broad and vague and therefore not proper notice? Realistically how's that any different than conduct detrimental to the league?

[Soxbadger]

see above

 

You didnt answer. How does obstructing the investigation (which no player in the NFL has been suspended for) equal 4 games? Even if we give the NFL the benefit of every fact that Brady purposefully destroyed his phone, there is no precedent for 4 games. According to the ruling no player had ever even been given 1 game. Like I said if the NFL was reasonable and gave him 1 game I doubt they lose, but 4 games was just way too much.

[Jenksismyhero]

They shouldn't have the right to look at his phone. Look at what happened when he gave up his other phone, texts leaked about his pool and some stuff he said about Peyton Manning. Maybe he was trying to hide something on the phone and it wasn't even related to deflated footballs. He shouldn't be suspended for not giving up his phone. I wouldn't give my phone to my boss.

 

The NFL told his lawyers they could redact all personal messages from the phone. That was never an issue.

[Jenksismyhero]

You didnt answer. How does obstructing the investigation (which no player in the NFL has been suspended for) equal 4 games? Even if we give the NFL the benefit of every fact that Brady purposefully destroyed his phone, there is no precedent for 4 games. According to the ruling no player had ever even been given 1 game. Like I said if the NFL was reasonable and gave him 1 game I doubt they lose, but 4 games was just way too much.

 

Because this is different from the prior situations. In bountygate people just didn't cooperate. They weren't destroying evidence. (edit: and it was also JUST the obstruction, not a violation and a subsequent attempt to hide it, at least per the quoted statement from Tagliabue.)

 

And doesn't a precedent have to start somewhere? I'm not saying 4 was a great number, but I didn't think it was egregious either. Knock it down to one or two, i'm fine with that. I think Goodell should have the right to suspend players from games if they're actively obstructing an investigation into a player/coach/personnel violation. If that's not on the table, why would any franchise ever permit any investigation by the NFL? Grab a fall guy, tell him to destroy everything, pay the fine later. You've chopped away the NFL's ability to self control which it collectively bargained for with the players.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

Look at page 20 where they cite the Bountgate case. Tagliabue vacated a suspension based on obstruction saying that it had never been done in NFL history and that many times players basically lied and were not punished for it.

 

That is the precedent. If the NFL wants to change this precedent they should have bargained for the ability to suspend players who do not cooperate with the process.

 

(edit)

 

And isnt "destroying evidence" and "not cooperating" just in the eyes of the beholder. If I dont turn over tapes or if I destroy the tapes, isnt it just semantics, in either case the NFL doesnt get access.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

All of this over some footballs that may or may not have been slightly underinflated.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

Look at page 20 where they cite the Bountgate case. Tagliabue vacated a suspension based on obstruction saying that it had never been done in NFL history and that many times players basically lied and were not punished for it.

 

That is the precedent. If the NFL wants to change this precedent they should have bargained for the ability to suspend players who do not cooperate with the process.

 

See my edit. At least per his quote, the player was being suspended solely for not cooperating. Not also violating the rule. I'm sure it was being applied to other players that didn't want to testify about what was going on. That's a distinguishable case from Brady violating the rules AND trying to cover up his involvement.

[Jenksismyhero]

All of this over some footballs that may or may not have been slightly underinflated.

 

And I get that. It's all silly. At the same time, if you allow people to skirt small rules, they'll keep doing it and keep testing the limits to gain an edge. That Patriots being a perfect example. I don't think we want that either.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

And I get that. It's all silly. At the same time, if you allow people to skirt small rules, they'll keep doing it and keep testing the limits to gain an edge. That Patriots being a perfect example. I don't think we want that either.

But that same argument applies to Goodell! You can't just keep letting him do whatever the hell he wants regardless of contractual due process. He's been slapped down by external review time and time again.

[Jenksismyhero]

But that same argument applies to Goodell! You can't just keep letting him do whatever the hell he wants regardless of contractual due process. He's been slapped down by external review time and time again.

 

I guess that's why i'm not concerned about him though. There's an appeal process that seems to work with Goodell setting a punishment and then the player getting it knocked down. I almost view it as a negotiation. Goodell starts high knowing the appeal is going to bring it down to whatever length is a good compromise.

 

And really, while I don't care that some of those suspensions got reduced, I would have been fine with what the original punishment was too. None of them were totally egregious IMO.

 

 

[Balta1701]

I guess that's why i'm not concerned about him though. There's an appeal process that seems to work with Goodell setting a punishment and then the player getting it knocked down. I almost view it as a negotiation. Goodell starts high knowing the appeal is going to bring it down to whatever length is a good compromise.

 

And really, while I don't care that some of those suspensions got reduced, I would have been fine with what the original punishment was too. None of them were totally egregious IMO.

Having the commissioner hear appeals on suspensions he originally set is an admittedly poor process but it's also one the Union bargained for last time the CBA was set. One of several things I am surprised the Union didn't make more of a push about.

[StrangeSox]

When it goes to the arbitrator, the arbitrator is supposed to be fair and unbiased, not one side in a negotiation. The federal judge isn't acting as the arbitrator here but a step beyond.

[Kyyle23]

They shouldn't have the right to look at his phone. Look at what happened when he gave up his other phone, texts leaked about his pool and some stuff he said about Peyton Manning. Maybe he was trying to hide something on the phone and it wasn't even related to deflated footballs. He shouldn't be suspended for not giving up his phone. I wouldn't give my phone to my boss.

 

Isnt this his NFL issued phone, though? If your company gives you a phone, I think you would have to give it to your boss if he said to give it to him

 

When it goes to the arbitrator, the arbitrator is supposed to be fair and unbiased, not one side in a negotiation. The federal judge isn't acting as the arbitrator here but a step beyond.

 

And the arbitrator should not be the same guy that issued the punishment that caused the arbitration

[Jenksismyhero]

Isnt this his NFL issued phone, though? If your company gives you a phone, I think you would have to give it to your boss if he said to give it to him

 

 

 

And the arbitrator should not be the same guy that issued the punishment that caused the arbitration

 

I always assumed the initial penalty is handed down by some other NFL exec that deals with punishment and then Goodell acts as the arbitrator of that decision. But I don't know for sure.

[StrangeSox]

I always assumed the initial penalty is handed down by some other NFL exec that deals with punishment and then Goodell acts as the arbitrator of that decision. But I don't know for sure.

Nope! Goodell reviews the wisdom of his own decisions.

[Balta1701]

Nope! Goodell reviews the wisdom of his own decisions.

Again, the NFL Players Association agreed to this process during their collective bargaining agreement negotiations.

[OmarComing25]

So happy that this story is finally done with, dumbest sports "controversy" I've ever heard about. I couldn't care less whether the footballs were deflated or not.

[The Gooch]

Isnt this his NFL issued phone, though? If your company gives you a phone, I think you would have to give it to your boss if he said to give it to him

 

I had never heard that, if it was then that might change my opinion, but as far as I know, it was his personal phone...

[The Gooch]

The NFL told his lawyers they could redact all personal messages from the phone. That was never an issue.

 

How did those other text messages get released to the public? With the way things get out about celebrities' personal lives, I would be very hesitant to give out something as personal as my phone to anyone. Especially an organization that looks to have released false information to the media about the deflated balls and at very least did not publicly refute that information when they knew it was wrong.

[Jenksismyhero]

Again, the NFL Players Association agreed to this process during their collective bargaining agreement negotiations.

 

I wonder if that's how all the professional leagues work. Silver does the NBA i'm pretty sure.

[Jenksismyhero]

How did those other text messages get released to the public? With the way things get out about celebrities' personal lives, I would be very hesitant to give out something as personal as my phone to anyone. Especially an organization that looks to have released false information to the media about the deflated balls and at very least did not publicly refute that information when they knew it was wrong.

 

I don't recall any personal information being released. Was that of Brady? The two ball guys?

 

Either way, again, Goodell's decision made clear that on several occasions the NFL told Brady they wanted the phone to look at communications about deflating balls and the AFC championship game and that they had no problem with his lawyers creating a log of the texts with redactions for personal messages where necessary. And even more damning to this claim: Brady gave them -- handed over with redacting anything-- TWO personal cell phones, one from way before the time in question and one after the time in question (or maybe he gave them one and the other he offered but the NFL said no thanks that's irrelevant...I can't remember off the top of my head). Of course the one the NFL wanted to look at, the one from around the time of the AFC championship game up to the time the investigation started (like Oct-March I believe), he coincidentally destroyed....again, despite knowing the NFL wanted to look at the texts.

 

In a normal court with a jury, Brady is guilty beyond doubt. That's why this decision is dumb. He's getting off on minor technicalities. Some cop f***ed up paperwork and the criminal gets off free despite convincing circumstantial evidence that he committed the crime.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Jenksismybitch