OT: Brady's full 4-game suspension upheld by NFL | The Boneyard

OT: Brady's full 4-game suspension upheld by NFL

Status
Not open for further replies.

RockyMTblue2

Don't Look Up!
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
21,967
Reaction Score
96,508
To me it's like Hillary saying one phone, two phones, private server, meh! You go Commish. Us poor folk have no chance to bring Hillary up short, but we can feel good about this!
 

toadfoot

To live will be an awfully big adventure.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
795
Reaction Score
2,156
Makes for great headlines, but totally irrelevant. This entire case rests on a single fact, can the league show that anyone tampered with the footballs or even that the PSI drop is not completely explainable by the Ideal Gas Law. The answer is a resounding no!

I harken back to my example in the earlier thread about "Deflategate". Let's pretend that someone is accused of robbing a bank. They destroy GPS evidence from the phone, car navigation system, etc., that could potentially place them at the scene of the crime. Have they commited a crime if it's discovered the bank was never robbed?
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,629
Reaction Score
25,738
Makes for great headlines, but totally irrelevant. This entire case rests on a single fact, can the league show that anyone tampered with the footballs or even that the PSI drop is not completely explainable by the Ideal Gas Law. The answer is a resounding no!

I harken back to my example in the earlier thread about "Deflategate". Let's pretend that someone is accused of robbing a bank. They destroy GPS evidence from the phone, car navigation system, etc., that could potentially place them at the scene of the crime. Have they committed a crime if it's discovered the bank was never robbed?

I've read this"lack of proof" argument before. Your flaw is in applying a criminal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) to an administrative discipline hearing where the the standard is "the preponderance of the evidence".

Beyond the facts of this case the Patriots have been caught crossing the line of sportsmanship before, and the league doesn't like it's image being dragged through the mud publically. And this is all about image.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
16,307
Reaction Score
24,078
There might have been some nice pics of his wife on that cell phone he destroyed.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
48,576
Reaction Score
165,883
Makes for great headlines, but totally irrelevant. This entire case rests on a single fact, can the league show that anyone tampered with the footballs or even that the PSI drop is not completely explainable by the Ideal Gas Law. The answer is a resounding no!

I harken back to my example in the earlier thread about "Deflategate". Let's pretend that someone is accused of robbing a bank. They destroy GPS evidence from the phone, car navigation system, etc., that could potentially place them at the scene of the crime. Have they commited a crime if it's discovered the bank was never robbed?
All sorts of wrong, this isn't a criminal case. NFL is well within their rights, the suspension will stand.
 

toadfoot

To live will be an awfully big adventure.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
795
Reaction Score
2,156
I've read this"lack of proof" argument before. Your flaw is in applying a criminal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) to an administrative discipline hearing where the the standard is "the preponderance of the evidence".

Beyond the facts of this case the Patriots have been caught crossing the line of sportsmanship before, and the league doesn't like it's image being dragged through the mud publically. And this is all about image.

You're absolutely wrong. I'm applying the standard of any evidence. I'm not going to rehash the thread from several months ago, but in a nutshell the Wells report completely falls apart if the logo gauge was used prior to the start of the game, which is what the head official claimed. The only way the Wells Report could conclude that the Ideal Gas Law didn't account for the loss of PSI was if they concluded that the official was mistaken. Keep in mind, the only recollection of the officials that the Wells Report discarded was that one.

As to your claim the the Patriot have been caught crossing the line before is utter nonsense. I suspect you're at least referring to Spygate, which was a minor technical violation of where filming was allowed. Like many people, I suspect you have no idea what Spygate was really about.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...pygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity
 

toadfoot

To live will be an awfully big adventure.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
795
Reaction Score
2,156
All sorts of wrong, this isn't a criminal case. NFL is well within their rights, the suspension will stand.

You've missed the point of the analogy. If the league can't show that the footballs were tampered with there's no case. And there's NO evidence that they can present, only a deeply flawed investigation and innuendo.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,629
Reaction Score
25,738
The Patriot footballs were lower than the standard at the half while their opponent's footballs were within the standard. A reasonable conclusion was that they had been tampered with. Gas law be dammned.

And there were two previous incidents, the taping of defensive signals from the sidelines and the Patriot's possession of tapes of their opponent's practice session. IMO the Pats are lucky the entire franchise hasn't been suspended for a season on the "3 strikes you're out" standard.

Remember, no one is concerned that Alex Rodriguez got a year off based on a handwritten note that was stolen and then sold to MLB in an illegal act. He never failed a test.
 

Husky25

Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
18,511
Reaction Score
19,487
The Patriot footballs were lower than the standard at the half while their opponent's footballs were within the standard. A reasonable conclusion was that they had been tampered with. Gas law be dammned.
You cannot say "Gas law be dammned." It's literally science. Not an art.

And there were two previous incidents, the taping of defensive signals from the sidelines and the Patriot's possession of tapes of their opponent's practice session. IMO the Pats are lucky the entire franchise hasn't been suspended for a season on the "3 strikes you're out" standard.
One instance. The possession of practice sessions tapes was disproven to the point that John Tomasse issued an apology for having reporting false information.

Remember, no one is concerned that Alex Rodriguez got a year off based on a handwritten note that was stolen and then sold to MLB in an illegal act. He never failed a test.

Look at that...The price of tea in China goes unaffected...I.e. two different sports. Two different sets of rules. A-Rod took MLB to court, as I recall, and got his suspension reduced to 162 games from 211.
 

Husky25

Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
18,511
Reaction Score
19,487
I wrote the following in another thread:

Once suit is filed in federal court, science takes a back seat to procedure. Though they certainly have that in their back pocket, Kesler is going to argue that regardless who announced the original penalties, it was not done in a vacuum. The penalties were determined by Goodell. Goodell then sat as appellate judge some 4 months later.

Goodell knew that this thing was going to court as soon as he authorized the punishment and that there is a positive non-zero (probably mid-double digits or higher) percent chance he loses. That is why 1) he upheld the original 4 games and 2) he fined the organization as well. Kraft had much less recourse than Brady does.

Goodell can now go back to the other 31 owners, especially the Colts and Ravens, and say, "Any reduction is out of my hands." Doty will do one of two things, IMO. Throw it back to the NFL and say get an appropriate arbiter who will throw out the ruling, considering the Hardy reduction, or 2) Follow his own precedent and toss the suspension.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
48,576
Reaction Score
165,883
You've missed the point of the analogy. If the league can't show that the footballs were tampered with there's no case. And there's NO evidence that they can present, only a deeply flawed investigation and innuendo.
Again, you are wrong.
 

toadfoot

To live will be an awfully big adventure.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
795
Reaction Score
2,156
The Patriot footballs were lower than the standard at the half while their opponent's footballs were within the standard. A reasonable conclusion was that they had been tampered with. Gas law be dammned

And there were two previous incidents, the taping of defensive signals from the sidelines and the Patriot's possession of tapes of their opponent's practice session. IMO the Pats are lucky the entire franchise hasn't been suspended for a season on the "3 strikes you're out" standard.

Remember, no one is concerned that Alex Rodriguez got a year off based on a handwritten note that was stolen and then sold to MLB in an illegal act. He never failed a test.

Wrong on all counts.
3 of the 4 Colt's footballs were below the 12.5 PSI threshold at halftime.

The Patriots have never even been accused of taping from the sidelines and I have no idea what your claim about the Patriots having possession of opponents practice sessions is about. Spygate was about filming from an unapproved location. It was a minor technical violation about filming. It's obvious you didn't read the link I provided. I suspect you're afraid that reading what actually happened would destroy this fantasy world you've created. I'm guessing your other claim was the report about filming the Rams walk thru before the Superbowl, a claim that was investigated and completely discredited.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,629
Reaction Score
25,738
Wrong on all counts.
3 of the 4 Colt's footballs were below the 12.5 PSI threshold at halftime.

The Patriots have never even been accused of taping from the sidelines and I have no idea what your claim about the Patriots having possession of opponents practice sessions is about. Spygate was about filming from an unapproved location. It was a minor technical violation about filming. It's obvious you didn't read the link I provided. I suspect you're afraid that reading what actually happened would destroy this fantasy world you've created. I'm guessing your other claim was the report about filming the Rams walk thru before the Superbowl, a claim that was investigated and completely discredited.

You are right. I only know what I have read in the media. I didn't realize that all the cheating accusations against the Patriots over the last 10 years or so were simply fabrications. If that is correct then the Patriots should sue the league. Frankly I'm only posting on this thread because I'm bored. I'm a Giant fan and have nothing but fond memories of Tom Brady and the Patriots. ;)
 

toadfoot

To live will be an awfully big adventure.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
795
Reaction Score
2,156
You are right. I only know what I have read in the media. I didn't realize that all the cheating accusations against the Patriots over the last 10 years or so were simply fabrications. If that is correct then the Patriots should sue the league. Frankly I'm only posting on this thread because I'm bored. I'm a Giant fan and have nothing but fond memories of Tom Brady and the Patriots. ;)

My guess is that you read the headlines or the ESPN synopsis. I've read the entire Wells Report, the Patriot's rebuttal, the AEI Report and 2 university studies. The AEI Report & both university studies categorically refute the conclusions of the Wells Report. And I gave you a link that reports the actual facts surrounding Spygate, but I suspect you'll never read it. It's a long article and includes some that is not related to Spygate, so I'll summarize for you. (edited for brevity)

Then there was the Patriots/ Jets camera incident.
The first one.
When the Jets got caught.
In a playoff game, Patriots' security prevented a Jets camera crew from filming. The crew was there in addition to the cameramen already recording game film from end zone and sideline angles. New England security didn’t confiscate the footage and turn it over to the NFL.

At a press conference, Mangini said the extra camera was there because he wanted game footage from both end zones. After the Spygate scandal broke, a former Patriots video assistant involved with filming coaches, Matt Walsh, said that was the standard excuse for his filming.

It’s standard practice for NFL teams to film their games. (These days, “Film” and “tape” can be misnomers because teams often use digitized footage.) NFL rules govern videotaping and film exchanges which allow teams to study future opponents. Unlike television coverage, game film lets viewers watch all 22 players on the field.
Section E of the Miscellaneous rules in the NFL’s Policy Manual for Member Clubs Volume II 2007 Edition reads that “club videographers have to shoot the scoreboard prior to each play,”just as Estrella did.

This establishes each play’s situation—the down, distance, and time remaining. Using film, coaches and players can study the strengths and weaknesses of themselves and their opponents. Film also allows teams to study tendencies, plays, tactics, and strategies.

The Patriots sparked outrage by filming Jets’ coaching signals rather than just their players. (Yet, somehow it’s perfectly fine if one of that team’s former players simply tells you what all the signals mean.)

It’s not known when someone first filmed coaching signals. It goes back at least to 1990 when Marty Schottenheimer coached Kansas City. Both on a Fox pregame show and on WFAN, a New York radio station, Jimmy Johnson, who coached the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowl Championships, said he also had staffers tape opposing coaches.
The media reports as if filming opposing coaches is a violation of NFL rules. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell shares this belief and apparently based his punishment on it.

A September 6, 2006 memo from Ray Anderson, the NFL head of game operations, adds to this. However, the rules don’t support this belief. Anderson’s memo reads, “Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches’ booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.”

Unfortunately, the memo misquotes the rules, and Anderson can’t change the rules. Rule changes must be proposed to and voted on by the teams. The NFL cited the misquoted rules against the Patriots from pages A105-A106 of the league’s Policy Manual for Member Clubs Volume II: Game Operations 2007 edition.
Miscellaneous Rules and Regulations, Section A. reads, “No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches’ booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game.”

The league also cited a portion of section D against the Patriots. Section D reads, “To ensure the protection of equipment and employees of the teams’ video departments, please follow the guidelines listed for the video shooting booths at your stadium.”

The league quoted the first guideline against the Patriots, “All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.” The rules never prohibit filming coaches. The sections used against the Patriots only concern camera locations.

Anderson’s memo adds an emphasis on signals, which isn’t in the rules. Also, Anderson says that videotaping is prohibited from “any other locations accessible to club staff members.”

This isn’t in the rules either.

The rule mentions only three spots where teams can’t use video equipment during games—the coaches’ booth, the locker room, and the field. No rule bars teams from recording signals as long as they locate their cameras properly.

Despite this, Goodell and especially the media continue to portray signal taping as the problem when the only real issue is camera location.

Even the location technicality isn’t open and shut. Again, consider the differences between Anderson’s memo and the rules. We’ve already seen that Anderson’s any “location accessible to club staff members” isn’t in the rules.

Also, using the Section D guideline about enclosed locations against the Patriots is disputable. The manual says the locations “ensure the protection of equipment and employees.” It doesn’t require teams to shoot from those locations. It only asks that teams provide them.

Defending himself, Bill Belichick said he interpreted the rules based on Article IX of The NFL Constitution and By-laws. Among other things, Article IX concerns videotaping. It reads, “Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.”

This seems to ban all taping, but, as we’ve seen, the league has two pages of rules requiring teams to tape and exchange the recordings.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
9,874
Reaction Score
29,425
Latest tonight is Brady was offered a reduction to 2 games if he admitted that the 2 equipment guys violated rules, and a further reduction to 1 game if he admitted interfering with the investigation. He basically said, "I ain't admitting nothin", and will sue in Federal court. NFLPA suit will focus on NFL's procedures in the investigation and ruling being against the NFLPA agreement.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,629
Reaction Score
25,738
I'm not impressed by university studies, by AEI rebuttals, by the "independent study" of the NFL and especially not by a clever interpretation of the rulebook. While I'm not naive enough to believe that athletics is above subterfuge, one of the most appealing things about sport to me is that it is a fair competition in which victory goes to the better competitor. For years the public was assailed with tales of the transcendent genius of Tom Brady. How his uncanny ability to know exactly where to throw a pass would put him among the immortals. Then we found out that he was being fed the defensive signals through his helmet before the snap. It was like discovering glasses that allow one to read playing cards. I'm sure there are no prohibitions against X Ray lens in the rules of poker, but most would consider it cheating none the less. That was the point where I considered Brady a cheat, and coniving to deflate his game balls is just further evidence. To me, and to most people who don't root for the Patriots, the preponderance of the evidence is clearly against Brady, no matter how many "experts" are hired by Kraft to rebut.

Whether or not there are other teams employing similar artifice to win is irrelevant.
 

toadfoot

To live will be an awfully big adventure.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
795
Reaction Score
2,156
I'm not impressed by university studies, by AEI rebuttals, by the "independent study" of the NFL and especially not by a clever interpretation of the rulebook. While I'm not naive enough to believe that athletics is above subterfuge, one of the most appealing things about sport to me is that it is a fair competition in which victory goes to the better competitor. For years the public was assailed with tales of the transcendent genius of Tom Brady. How his uncanny ability to know exactly where to throw a pass would put him among the immortals. Then we found out that he was being fed the defensive signals through his helmet before the snap. It was like discovering glasses that allow one to read playing cards. I'm sure there are no prohibitions against X Ray lens in the rules of poker, but most would consider it cheating none the less. That was the point where I considered Brady a cheat, and coniving to deflate his game balls is just further evidence. To me, and to most people who don't root for the Patriots, the preponderance of the evidence is clearly against Brady, no matter how many "experts" are hired by Kraft to rebut.

Whether or not there are other teams employing similar artifice to win is irrelevant.

Stealing defensive signals is NOT a violation of any NFL rules. Teams have been doing it forever. One of the great "lies" surrounding Spygate was that filming the signals, "stealing them" was against the rules, it's not and never has been.
Neither AEI or the 2 universities (Carnegie Mellon and I forget the other) were hired by the Patriots. You completely discredit your arguments when you continue to post made up "stuff".
 

toadfoot

To live will be an awfully big adventure.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
795
Reaction Score
2,156
Latest tonight is Brady was offered a reduction to 2 games if he admitted that the 2 equipment guys violated rules, and a further reduction to 1 game if he admitted interfering with the investigation. He basically said, "I ain't admitting nothin", and will sue in Federal court. NFLPA suit will focus on NFL's procedures in the investigation and ruling being against the NFLPA agreement.

Good. My wet dream is that after winning in federal court that Brady goes after the league and some media, principally ESPN, with a defamation lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
3,109
Reaction Score
8,763
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I'll have to go to my inside source for all matters concerning the NFL. A small group of us just call him by his nickname, the Deflator.
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
408
Reaction Score
1,430
Good. My wet dream is that after winning in federal court that Brady goes after the league and some media, principally ESPN, with a defamation lawsuit.
Did you listen to Mr. Kraft this morning? Reminded me of Al Davis. If Goodell hasn't hand picked the judge in NYC to listen to the federal case this could be very interesting.
 

Orangutan

South Bend Simian
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
5,868
Reaction Score
26,702
I haven't been following this super closely, but I have a thought I'd like feedback on. Is it possible that ball PSI is explainable by science but also possibly a result of tampering? If it's in a gray area, then the circumstantial evidence would seem pretty relevant and in that context the texts from the equipment guys and the fact that Brady destroyed a phone look pretty bad.

Anyhow, it's (mostly) all moot now as the impending court case will be all about the CBA and labor law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
2,015
Total visitors
2,101

Forum statistics

Threads
156,894
Messages
4,069,681
Members
9,951
Latest member
Woody69


Top Bottom