#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
dcmissle said:
Understood. But (and I pointed this out in the Francesa thread yesterday) when people say, "Why would they risk it?" the answer is obvious: BECAUSE UNTIL THAT POINT, NOBODY IN THE HISTORY OF THE NFL EVER CARED ABOUT THIS. Ever. As in, EVER.
There isn't a chance in hell that the Patriots IMAGINED that this little thing could ever have resulted in such a penalty. Especially when we know there were at least two other ball tampering incidents that occurred recently - one by the Chargers resulting in a $20k fine, and the other by the Panthers resulting in just a finger-wagging. And also because the rulebook calls for only a $25k fine (which wasn't even applied in either case I just mentioned).
Again, there was no reason whatsoever to even consider that this little act could have resulted in such grave consequences. None.
In other words, the ball guys didn't really even think they were taking that big of a risk - no risk at all really. I mean, if he did indeed to it, he knew it was against the rules. Just like, you know, holding is against the rules. So you don't actually try to be so open about it. You try to hide it. But it would be like committing a holding infraction and being suspended four games for it. You don't even consider such a penalty to be remotely possible.
ivanvamp said:
It goes beyond this. The Wells report specifically said that BB and ownership had no knowledge / role in the deflation. And then they were given the harshest team penalty in NFL history. Why would they logically expect such a harsh punishment?
Behind closed doors they may have expected it since Goodell is nuts. But they can't say that publicly. Saying it far exceeded the punishment they expected is all just part of their strategy of showing the whole ordeal is nonsense.
. C'mon, you cannot compare player suspensions to the those of off-field folksnighthob said:
Yes, but the claim was that no one else ever has to worry about Goodell coming down on their teams for picayune infractions, I agree that Brady's is infinitely worse, both for impact and for the nature of the "violation". But let's be serious here, Goodell has treated the Browns like a battered stepson and it's not like they have some fantastic record of success here. So, yes, the Ginger Knish is way out of his depth and if he wakes up on the wrong side of the bed you're screwed.Harry Hooper said:
Icculus said:
AB in DC said:
The bold is critical. In fact, as has been discussed before, BB broke no rule or league bylaw. I don't believe the memo represented a true amendment/change... it was a newly communicated league clarification/expectation. BB "pantsed" Goodell by indicating that BB's reading of the actual bylaw language did not violate anything. Subsequently, when he issued is infamous "mea culpa", BB was not contrite enough for Goodell and essentially embarrassed the NFL with its inability to understand its own constitution. Goodell got butthurt and didn't appreciate being outfoxed, hence overreaction penalty #1. Wells and the NFL are overreacting in part to the original overreaction because of their belief that the Patriots are (in the NFL's eyes) once again up to their usual shenanigans (operating on or over the line). The NFL can't find anything conclusive, so the Patriots are being branded as serial tricksters and magicians. The Penn and Teller of the NFL.
jsinger121 said:
Granted, I don't have the knowledge of Bountygate, but only the player suspensions were overturned. Payton's and Williams's were held up, but I think they had some pretty ugly-looking stuff against Payton (i.e. he was well aware of it and did nothing, a la Joe Paterno).
Plus, the punishment for the Saints was spun as vzv the ongoing concussion issue, and that the NFL had to come down hard to show they considered player safety a significant issue.
Belichick was stupid to continue taping from the sidelines regardless of whether he had the better reading of the bylaw. It was a reckless decision, and it hurt the team then and now. Goodell is unreasonable, but he's the commissioner, and until he's not, you avoid going out of your way to incur his wrath.
nighthob said:
Browns GM suspension hit two "hotspots" for the NFL that pushed the Commish to display a strong response:
1) Spygate penalty aftermath, another unapproved use of technology during games
2) Attempt to stave off NFLPA lawsuits over players' contract incentives being intentionally thwarted
Which is why Kraft called BB a schmuck when BB explained the taping didn't help all that much, then apologized to his fellow owners.
We are hearing things along the same lines in the other thread about deflating: so biggie so long as the balls stayed within limits -- even after the officials approved them, because this had never been a big issue before. Really?
We are hearing things along the same lines in the other thread about deflating: so biggie so long as the balls stayed within limits -- even after the officials approved them, because this had never been a big issue before. Really?
That's not a good defense. Memos from the commissioner's office regarding clarifications of existing rules are expected to be followed. Belichick did not follow the established procedures in the NFL's Game Operations Manual when he allowed taping from the sideline. Maybe it was an honest misinterpretation of the memo or the rule, but that's not an excuse for not calling up the league office and getting clarification. It was a big mistake by Belichick, and there should have been no expectation of leniency in that case.Dick Pole Upside said:
Now, there was no rule that says Belichick needed to show a level of contrition. By all accounts, the Patriots cooperated completely with Goodell in turning over the tapes in their possession. So, Goodell's subsequent complaints about Belichick's lack of contrition are total bullshit, and he knows that. So the incorporation of Spygate into the punishment for Deflategate is also total bullshit.
I don't know about leniency, but the heaviest fine in the history of the NFL and docking a first-round pick was wildly out of proportion to the crime committed. The Patriots deserved to be punished, but something like a modest fine and a late-round pick maybe. There's a reason we don't chop off the hands of petty thieves anymore.lexrageorge said:
jsinger121 said:
The player suspensions were overturned or reduced. But Sean Payton still missed an entire year and they lost two 2nd rounders. To me, that's an even heavier punishment than the Patriots got.
Of course, the Saints actually did something bad and there was actual evidence that they did it.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Yup. But with bountygate they conducted everything quietly. Also they had nothing until Tom Benson turned out the teams emails and then they got Greg Williams as the mastermind.
Correct. And that drained all common sense from the process and turned the NFL into a reality tv show, at least as long as Goodell is in charge.Super Nomario said:
Which basically means you can't cross the line on anything if you're the Patriots.
There's a couple of possible outcomes here, ranging from 100% exoneration to a negotiated reduction in the penalties.
For those who want exoneration, keep this in mind:
1. It doesn't matter what the impact of deflation is to the game on the field. This is about breaking a rule concerning tampering with balls after approval by the officials
2. It doesn't matter what the Patriots provided to the NFL. This is about not providing 100% cooperation.
3. It doesn't matter what other teams have done. But it DOES matter how this punishment relates to previous penalty judgments.
The best outcome involves the complete release of Wells' primary source material, unedited and raw (including raw materials from Exponent). It should also involve relevant communications between the League and other teams and testimony concerning a possible sting and/or retribution.
1. A competent independent forensic engineering/physics/statistical and materials testing team can easily and systematically debunk the Exponent Report. Which will leave only the texts, which are problematic. I imagine a good lawyer, possibly augmented by context not provided in the Wells Report, may counter the "more probable than not" standard exposed by those texts. This is the questionable part and may rely on believable testimony by McNally and Jastremski, which sounds like a stretch. The Exponent team simulated someone needling the balls...did they re-measure the balls afterward? Was only a needle used, or was it another gauge that had a deflation button? Could they simulate comparable results or was it only that someone was able to unpackage, stick a needle in a dozen balls and repackage within the time frame?
2. The McNally interview refusal can be countered. The only counter for Brady's refusal would probably be a legal defense that he was under no obligation and that he feared leaks of personal/private correspondence. Maybe the counter is for the League to provide all of its relevant communications, including the people who complained and Kensil's role (among others). How does Brady get around the "didn't fully cooperate" angle -which is grounds for punishment?
3. It's clear that the punishment does not fit the crime, as it all comes down to videos and texts that are circumstantial and have no reliable scientific confirmation. What does Brady have on his electronics? Is there a smoking gun? His refusal is the only real basis for concluding that he "more probably than not" had a "general knowledge" of rule breaking - as opposed to simply preparing inflation levels to his liking before inspection.
Wells has some explaining to do about how McNally could inflate balls after inspection, because he can't pick and choose his texts. The same crap that has him labeling himself the deflator needs to be combined with his contention that he could over-inflate balls. That's not sticking a needle (gauged or not) into a football surreptitiously - that's pumping up a ball after inspection. If that's a line of bullshit, how does Wells give other statements credence?
It all comes down to the texts, McNally's lying, and the bathroom video. We know scientists can argue their's no substantial proof that balls were deflated, but lawyers will need to argue the other stuff. How will they do that?
For those who want exoneration, keep this in mind:
1. It doesn't matter what the impact of deflation is to the game on the field. This is about breaking a rule concerning tampering with balls after approval by the officials
2. It doesn't matter what the Patriots provided to the NFL. This is about not providing 100% cooperation.
3. It doesn't matter what other teams have done. But it DOES matter how this punishment relates to previous penalty judgments.
The best outcome involves the complete release of Wells' primary source material, unedited and raw (including raw materials from Exponent). It should also involve relevant communications between the League and other teams and testimony concerning a possible sting and/or retribution.
1. A competent independent forensic engineering/physics/statistical and materials testing team can easily and systematically debunk the Exponent Report. Which will leave only the texts, which are problematic. I imagine a good lawyer, possibly augmented by context not provided in the Wells Report, may counter the "more probable than not" standard exposed by those texts. This is the questionable part and may rely on believable testimony by McNally and Jastremski, which sounds like a stretch. The Exponent team simulated someone needling the balls...did they re-measure the balls afterward? Was only a needle used, or was it another gauge that had a deflation button? Could they simulate comparable results or was it only that someone was able to unpackage, stick a needle in a dozen balls and repackage within the time frame?
2. The McNally interview refusal can be countered. The only counter for Brady's refusal would probably be a legal defense that he was under no obligation and that he feared leaks of personal/private correspondence. Maybe the counter is for the League to provide all of its relevant communications, including the people who complained and Kensil's role (among others). How does Brady get around the "didn't fully cooperate" angle -which is grounds for punishment?
3. It's clear that the punishment does not fit the crime, as it all comes down to videos and texts that are circumstantial and have no reliable scientific confirmation. What does Brady have on his electronics? Is there a smoking gun? His refusal is the only real basis for concluding that he "more probably than not" had a "general knowledge" of rule breaking - as opposed to simply preparing inflation levels to his liking before inspection.
Wells has some explaining to do about how McNally could inflate balls after inspection, because he can't pick and choose his texts. The same crap that has him labeling himself the deflator needs to be combined with his contention that he could over-inflate balls. That's not sticking a needle (gauged or not) into a football surreptitiously - that's pumping up a ball after inspection. If that's a line of bullshit, how does Wells give other statements credence?
It all comes down to the texts, McNally's lying, and the bathroom video. We know scientists can argue their's no substantial proof that balls were deflated, but lawyers will need to argue the other stuff. How will they do that?
This is not even on the list of most damning things in the Wells Report.geoduck no quahog said:
McNally could have meant that instead of delivering the balls to the refs at around 12.5 and asking them to keep them there, he would deliver them at 13.5 and ask for them to stay at the high end, or say nothing knowing that the tendency of the refs is to err on the high side.
Wells' premise is that McNally typically needles the balls to deflare. In these scenarios he would *refrain* from needling them in order to stick it to Tom.
Just as it doesn't take a lot of creativity to frame the texts in such a way that they support Brady, it doesn't take a lot of creativity to support the Wells narrative either...especially in this case.
I don't care how much money he made in billing the NFL for the report: he lost his firm money yesterday.Bleedred said:
Myt1 said:
People might not realize how much these firms gross. PW grosses over a billion a year. $5 million accounts for donuts in the break room.
http://www.americanlawyer.com/law-firm-profiles-result?firmname=Paul+Weiss+Rifkind+Wharton+%26+Garrison&slreturn=20150413174919
Agreed. I was not defending the punishment, which was a big reason why Belichick may not have been exactly contrite after the fact. I was just pointing out that Belichick was in the wrong. With Deflategate, it's still not clear anything even happened.Super Nomario said:
Thank you for this.Myt1 said:
I keep hearing about how Wells is the smartest lawyer in the history of ever and he acted like a rank amateur yesterday.
How? Do you think current clients or future ones will not use Wells or PW because of the press conference?Myt1 said:
Here is a reasonable map to where we may be heading from Tom Brady's perspective:
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2015/02/26/0ap3000000474268.pdf
It's the decision of Judge Doty (of Minnesota) vacating the suspension of Adrian Peterson imposed by "neutral" arbitrator Harold Henderson, who was appointed by Goodell. It is relatively short, includes the jurisdictional basis and the standard of review. I believe this remains on appeal.
Peterson's case, IMO, is more clear cut than Brady's because the NFL did what the NFL often does -- try to impose an extra-legal standard (here retroactively, as distinguished from Ray Rice's case where it punished twice) and otherwise run roughshod over the rights of the player procedurally.
Brady's case does not present the same pure issue of law, though it does raise the tasty question of how a player can be penalized for his "general awareness" of another's violation. Brady's case also is complicated by this non-cooperation charge while Peterson's was not.
But this generally is a good road map. As noted above, I expect Goodell to handle the appeal himself and cut the suspension. Or maybe he'll hand it off to Henderson again. (I expect this to go nowhere near Tagliabue's desk).
And if Tom remains displeased, and I'm almost certain he will, he will sue.
Note the drama in this decision about the NFL summoning AP to the office. If Goodell keeps this one, I expect a similar "invitation".
EDIT -- AP case on appeal: Case Number 15-1438: NFL Players Association v. National Football League
So recent that there is nothing filed yet. Eighth Circuit has perhaps the best technology of any, so you can go to its website and check the stuff when filings are made.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2015/02/26/0ap3000000474268.pdf
It's the decision of Judge Doty (of Minnesota) vacating the suspension of Adrian Peterson imposed by "neutral" arbitrator Harold Henderson, who was appointed by Goodell. It is relatively short, includes the jurisdictional basis and the standard of review. I believe this remains on appeal.
Peterson's case, IMO, is more clear cut than Brady's because the NFL did what the NFL often does -- try to impose an extra-legal standard (here retroactively, as distinguished from Ray Rice's case where it punished twice) and otherwise run roughshod over the rights of the player procedurally.
Brady's case does not present the same pure issue of law, though it does raise the tasty question of how a player can be penalized for his "general awareness" of another's violation. Brady's case also is complicated by this non-cooperation charge while Peterson's was not.
But this generally is a good road map. As noted above, I expect Goodell to handle the appeal himself and cut the suspension. Or maybe he'll hand it off to Henderson again. (I expect this to go nowhere near Tagliabue's desk).
And if Tom remains displeased, and I'm almost certain he will, he will sue.
Note the drama in this decision about the NFL summoning AP to the office. If Goodell keeps this one, I expect a similar "invitation".
EDIT -- AP case on appeal: Case Number 15-1438: NFL Players Association v. National Football League
So recent that there is nothing filed yet. Eighth Circuit has perhaps the best technology of any, so you can go to its website and check the stuff when filings are made.
dcmissle said:
He won't do it, but Bill is well within his rights to return the favor and call Kraft a schmuck for defending Goodell during the Ray Rice debacle.
Bleedred said:
To answer your question with a question the next time you hear that PW did an independent report of some kind will you think it's impartial or will you assume it's unfairly biased in favor of the company paying the bills.
Let alone getting work from Pats fans.
Right.Bleedred said:
With Spygate, a heavy punishment came down from a new commissioner to a coach who was thumbing his nose at the (admittedly stupid rule). The commissioner needed to prevent other teams from ignoring him, so Kraft accepted the penalty.
With the salary cap violations, this is a central issue to owners' profitability and its no surprise Kraft and other owners accepted it.
With Bountygate, as was pointed out above somewhere, Goodell's penalty could be read as a preemptive strike against future concussion and CTE lawsuits. I wasn't that surprised the penalty was harsh, and I think the owners made a rational decision to accept it to reduce risk of future liability.
But now both for the Rice scandal and Brady's Balls Goodell has gone off the rails. In the first case, Rice, some people gave Goodell a hard time but Kraft backed him. In the second case of Brady's Balls, Kraft has been made an enemy.
The situation gets worse for Goodell each crisis now. The most recent two crises are major mistakes and Goodell is losing support. Before this year, none of the discipline could be interpreted from a long view as damaging the collective owners' interests - as damaging the league. The way Goodell handled the two scandals this year has damaged the league.
Average Reds said:
Are you saying it's bad for business to come across like the half-sloshed older businessman you bump into at the bar inside the Hyatt in Minneapolis?
Obviously anecdotal but I spoke to a good friend yesterday who is a GC at a decent sized company in the NY area who has lots or connections at PW. He's not a Pats fan but he swore to me he's done with the firm after Wells' performance yesterday.
That's probably hyperbole and the point about the size of the firm is a good one. But Wells is about as high profile as they come and he did damage to himself and his firm yesterday. Who knows how much, probably not a ton, but there is no way any of his partners were happy with that performance.
That's probably hyperbole and the point about the size of the firm is a good one. But Wells is about as high profile as they come and he did damage to himself and his firm yesterday. Who knows how much, probably not a ton, but there is no way any of his partners were happy with that performance.
When did this happen? Was this public? All I remember is them announcing the extension of BB's contract right before the Charger game and then the systematic destruction of just about the entire league for the next two months.dcmissle said:
The opening brief and opposition have been filed. The reply is due on the 26th.dcmissle said:
EL Jeffe said:
If he really doesn't want to share, I think he could just say, "Even considering the fact that I didnt turn it over, here's why the penalty is too severe (or the finding is wrong, or whatever)."
To me, even if he had evidence on his phone that *completely cleared him* he can't undo the established fact that he did not give it up during the investigation. As f'd up as the investigation might have been, that would be sandbagging, which generally doesn't go over well.
Ultimately it would *not* be out of the question for an neutral appeal outcome to say, "Even though the evidence was not sufficiant to show that the balls were actually deflated, the fact remains that by not giving the NFL the information, the 'lack of cooperation' finding is supported."
It may be similar to Lewis Libby, and all the braying from his supporters about how impossible it was that he was convicted of "obstructing justice" when "there was no underlying crime." There doesn't have to be. To use an extreme example, if Brady told Wells to go fuck himself, and then video emerged of Irsay, Grigson and Kensil deflating balls, a finding of "failing to cooperate" against Brady could stick, IMO.
The punishment is another matter entirely.
Ralphwiggum said:
It was a nugget from a book several years back by New York Daily News writer Gary Myers. Make of that what you will
Something that every Pats fan should know: Belichick did not ignore a rule. He ignored a memo which did not state the rule it was referencing correctly. If you want to change the rules and bylaws of the NFL, it cannot be done in a memo, although AB has a legit argument that the NFL basically did just that. I'm not at all trying to argue that defying that memo is the correct or best response. To apply it to the current situation, it's as if the NFL had circulated a memo saying that all game balls need to be submitted at a minimum of 12.5 PSI. We're all well versed enough with those rules by now to realize that's not required, yet it's not the best idea to present footballs at 11.5 PSI to prove a point.
Apologies to any contribution I might have made to derail this thread because the actual scenario is fascinating to me. Kraft has (imo) clearly been done an extreme disservice by Goodell, and yet it was done in accordance to the rules he agreed to play by. In addition to that he has backed Rog earlier which seems to have painted himself into a corner. If he had been warning other owners about Goodell overstepping his authority he might have more sympathy.
Apologies to any contribution I might have made to derail this thread because the actual scenario is fascinating to me. Kraft has (imo) clearly been done an extreme disservice by Goodell, and yet it was done in accordance to the rules he agreed to play by. In addition to that he has backed Rog earlier which seems to have painted himself into a corner. If he had been warning other owners about Goodell overstepping his authority he might have more sympathy.
Absolutely. As evidenced by common sense - and the punishment the Broncos got for a far worse infraction a couple of years later.Super Nomario said: