This is exactly correct. Woody's statement, intentional tampering or not, was a message to Revis, all is forgiven, we want you back and will pursue if we are given the opportunity.Ed Hillel said:
TamperGate: Woody's Petty Escapades
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
More and more, I keep feeling like I'm getting punked by the NFL or something. Or it's going WWE.
I mean, there keep being situations that when they first arise, I think it's like a goof or something, or that people are fucking around, and then it turns out people are actually serious about it.
I scoffed when the Deflategate thread was started. I can't believe this tampering charge is on the back page of the Daily News. And yes, I know what that paper is, but still.
People are becoming very silly.
I mean, there keep being situations that when they first arise, I think it's like a goof or something, or that people are fucking around, and then it turns out people are actually serious about it.
I scoffed when the Deflategate thread was started. I can't believe this tampering charge is on the back page of the Daily News. And yes, I know what that paper is, but still.
People are becoming very silly.
Return of the Dewey said:
Except, as Shelterdog points out, it doesn't. You have to read the whole thing and read every part within the context of the entire rule.
The term tampering, as used within the National Football League, refers to any
interference by a member club with the employer-employee relationship of another
club or any attempt by a club to impermissibly induce a person to seek employment
with that club or with the NFL.
Saying "Too bad he left, we miss him." isn't an attempt to induce someone to come work for you.
Both Woody's and Kraft's statements could be fairly described as "puffery"; not intended to have any material impact that rises to the level of tampering as considered by the Rule. That's what the Manish Mehta's are clinging to when they say the instances are "the same". That aside, it's a false equivalence, because Kraft's comments can still be differentiated from Woody's because Revis was an impending free agent who was about to engage in negotiations on a new contract when Woody made his comment.
That's not all he said. He said that the fan in him wanted Revis back. It's a weak argument, but, if you walk down the road that I laid out before, it could be argued that such a statement makes Revis think twice about his signing (e.g. "geez, I didn't know that the owner wanted me so much"), and then try to get out of his current deal (e.g. holdouts).drleather2001 said:
Whatever, I don't care that much...Jets still suck regardless.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
DrewDawg said:
I understand the practical difference between the two comments, most particularly because Johnson's was about a pending free agent, whereas Kraft's was about a recently-departed member of his team who won't be on the market again for a while. Kraft's could not possibly have any effect on Revis's market, while Woody's, in theory, could (leaving aside the fact that Revis and his agent would both have to be in a coma to not see if the Jets were interested once his option was declined).
What I was saying is that by the wording of the rule, a result of "Kraft's statement = tampering" would just as absurd a result as "Woody's statement = tampering" would be. Frankly, I think both would be absurd results, given the intent of the rule.
Shelterdog said:
OK, this does seem to draw a harder distinction. Woody's statement, while very weak in this regard, was at least aimed at making it clear that he wanted Revis to seek employment with his club. Kraft's statement had no such aims, in its intent or plain meaning, no matter how hard Manish Mehta wishes he could change the English language.
I think the bolded is the key phrase I needed to see. Thanks.
I don't know what I did to be on your ignore listMentalDisabldLst said:
Yes, that is right - Kraft (like Mara and everyone else) is merely discussing failing to sign a player in the past, while Johnson did that but then also said that he wants to sign the player in the future. That is a significant difference as one relates to the purpose of the tampering rule, and the others have to be twisted to get there.
jsinger121 said:
I love that the hometown paper features a picture of Kraft holding the Lombardi and Woody holding a 99 cent cup of coffee. That's the difference between the two organizations right there.
I dont think Woody's comments mattered a whit in practice, but that argument is a huge stretch, especially since the comment was that the fan in Kraft wanted him back at a time when he was either under contract to the Patriots or a free agent (most likely the former)Return of the Dewey said:
I think BB may, on some level, be loving this. I think press conferences are going to be hilarious. "Bill, what kind of challenges do Andrew Luck and the Indy offense present." "Tom, I can't talk about a player under contract with another team."
And the ribbon saying Geno is the #1 QB says it all too. They improved every area but the most critical to success(unless you think Ryan Fitzpatrick is the answer).Marciano490 said:
an Rapoport @RapSheet · 48m
48 minutes ago
Goodell says the league is looking into “several” teams for anti-tampering window violations. I’ve heard more than 20. No word on penalties
48 minutes ago
Goodell says the league is looking into “several” teams for anti-tampering window violations. I’ve heard more than 20. No word on penalties
@JasonPhilCole: Insider Buzz: NFL Execs Believe Patriots Originally Tampered with Revis in 2014 http://t.co/2c0ADiYCJJ via @bleacherreport
Lol
Lol
Next up, the Patriots cheated because they didn't tell the other team their cadence.Van Everyman said:
Papelbon's Poutine said:Not even winning NY (75/25 split against)
Giant fans have enough good sense to recognize the joke that is the New York Jets.
Wow, for once ESPN framed a question in a way favorable to the Patriots. While arguing about verb tense (as was done here) and pointing out that Kraft's statement was after Revis signed (as ESPN did) are getting at essentially the same thing, one of them conjures unreasonableness in the mind of the reader much more easily than the other.
soxhop411 said:
"NFL Execs"? Hello Kensil? Just keep digging buddy - keep reminding Kraft that your head is part of the apology.
@MMehtaNYDN: NFL meetings are over. Insecure Patriots fans should adhere to this simple directive: #nyj http://t.co/tqWgXPEofn
https://twitter.com/mmehtanydn/status/580831426976739328
https://twitter.com/mmehtanydn/status/580831426976739328
link to tweet
https://twitter.com/mmehtanydn/status/580831426976739328
link to tweet
I don't know about you guys, but this past month has just been pure hell. In between re-watching another Super Bowl Victory and parade combo thirty times, and following all the appearances by players on tv, I've done a lot of crying because the Jets signed some players they couldn't win with a few years ago. It's hard out here.
Caspir said:
It's a big pain the balls making room on the DVD shelf for more championship videos too.
Overheard at LaGuardia airport:
"Did you see that the Jets stuck it to the Patriots with a tampering charge of their own?"
"Yeah, two can play that game"
(Several comments followed by an awkward pause.)
"They still have a better organization than the fucking Jets"
(Another pause)
"Yeah"
(Much laughter)
"Did you see that the Jets stuck it to the Patriots with a tampering charge of their own?"
"Yeah, two can play that game"
(Several comments followed by an awkward pause.)
"They still have a better organization than the fucking Jets"
(Another pause)
"Yeah"
(Much laughter)
The issue is that the sample for public/private comments is a bad one given the actual definition of tampering and the stated policy reasons or the rule. "As a fan, in March and April, I hate to lose him," is really close to the sample.Joshv02 said:I don't know what I did to be on your ignore list
Yes, that is right - Kraft (like Mara and everyone else) is merely discussing failing to sign a player in the past, while Johnson did that but then also said that he wants to sign the player in the future. That is a significant difference as one relates to the purpose of the tampering rule, and the others have to be twisted to get there.
I think you could end up with an ambiguous statute finding and use the example as an indication of intent to capture an extremely broad universe of statements. That may be an absurd result normatively, but rule making bodies are allowed to be silly.
Agreed - that the example is pretty bad, and that the rule is a bit of mess (though, in fairness, it is really a policy statement that tries to tell people where to draw lines given the need to balance the various concerns). But really, we should probably read the stated rule, the stated purpose, and the example together rather than disjointed. Typically, taking sentences out of context lessens our understand of what the words were trying to mean rather than enhances it.Myt1 said:
My words are trying to move the idea from my brain into a shared experience that I think you'll have, and the better I am at writing the closer we'll get to that shared experience.
Yes, but it is significantly less likely to be what the authors meant.
(One of the problems of applying this type analysis of rules in the political/legal arena is issues of democracy and coercion -- that leads us to adopt all sorts of default rules to make sure legislative bodies jump through all the hoops before we say they act. But, that isn't really present to anywhere near the same degree when we are simply trying to figure out what private actors meant when they say things. That is true especially in a situation like this where this isn't even a contract, its a policy statement by a private board that has broad authority to regulate these things to a member institution trying to describe the contours of how it will otherwise enforce an already established rule.)
Pretty tough to see how Kraft's comments can be interpreted as tampering given the below Definition & Purpose from the NFL anti-tampering policy. The rule is very badly written in that it is self-contradictory, as later on in the same document Kraft's (and many other executives) public statements are defined as tampering due to an overly broad "any public or private statement of interest qualified or unqualified" phrase. Unlike Kraft's comments, it's clear that Woody's statements fit the Definition & Purpose section as well as the later overly broad section that every mediot (and Jets homer/lawyer) cites.
http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/2009%20NFL%20Anti-Tampering%20Policy.pdf
Definition
The term tampering, as used within the National Football League, refers to any
interference by a member club with the employer-employee relationship of another
club or any attempt by a club to impermissibly induce a person to seek employment
with that club or with the NFL.
Purpose
The purpose of the NFL Anti-Tampering Policy, as it applies to tampering with
players, is to protect member clubs’ contract and negotiating rights, and, at the same
time, to allow the intra-League competitive systems devised for the acquisition and
retention of player talent (e.g., college draft, waiver system, free-agent rules under an
operative collective bargaining agreement) to operate efficiently.
http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/2009%20NFL%20Anti-Tampering%20Policy.pdf
Definition
The term tampering, as used within the National Football League, refers to any
interference by a member club with the employer-employee relationship of another
club or any attempt by a club to impermissibly induce a person to seek employment
with that club or with the NFL.
Purpose
The purpose of the NFL Anti-Tampering Policy, as it applies to tampering with
players, is to protect member clubs’ contract and negotiating rights, and, at the same
time, to allow the intra-League competitive systems devised for the acquisition and
retention of player talent (e.g., college draft, waiver system, free-agent rules under an
operative collective bargaining agreement) to operate efficiently.
Manish Mehta @MMehtaNYDN 2m2 minutes ago
League source: NFL fines Jets $100,000 in Revis tampering case. No docking of draft picks. Patriots not fined. Full Story coming #nyj
League source: NFL fines Jets $100,000 in Revis tampering case. No docking of draft picks. Patriots not fined. Full Story coming #nyj
Manish Mehta @MMehtaNYDN 2m2 minutes ago
League source: NFL fines Jets $100,000 in Revis tampering case. No docking of draft picks. Patriots not fined. Full Story coming #nyj
League source: NFL fines Jets $100,000 in Revis tampering case. No docking of draft picks. Patriots not fined. Full Story coming #nyj
