Obnoxious Football Trash Talk Thread

[Roadliner]

I'm too tired to PKU lol. :cross:

 

[fosaisu]

Stop - hold the bus!!!!

I take back everything I've said about any $25k fine of Brady being appropriate. As it turns out, even that much is a gross overstepping of what's allowed. (Stick with me Darwin, I'll try to use smallish words so you can follow - but repeat after me - No, the NFL cannot do whatever it damn well pleases.)

Check out the following article on details coming to light about the NFLPA's suit against the NFL over this whole hot mess...

The most relevant highlight to our conversation here? The ball pressure isn't even in the player's rulebook! It's in the "Game Operations Manual" that's provided for the benefit of the teams, and not published to the players. So, Brady's being penalized for being generally aware of a rule being broken that isn't even in any materials that are published for him or any of the other 51 guys on the Pats active roster.

But wait. There's more. (And Hoppy, this is gonna make you mad for Beastmode - definitely looks to me like he got shafted.)

The policies that ARE given out to players provide for specific, collectively bargained (see, that term!!!!) fines for equipment violations - the policies cite stickum or slippery compounds, for example. Nothing specific about ball pressure - though I grant that maybe that could fall into their catch-all about modifications that could grant a competitive advantage, assuming somewhere in there they include guidelines as to what pressures don't grant a competitive advantage. But since when do funny colored shoes grant any kind of competitive advantage? Beastmode got shafted. (Unless there's some other bit of the CBA that covers uniform colors and penalties for not adhering to them.)

And the Player Policies - again, under the CBA - specifically limit a first time offender to a fine of $8,268.

So. IF the Player Policies, or some other player-published rules state what the pressure should be in the football (and the NFLPA already established they do not - but we'll ignore that because everyone wants to ignore everything in favor of Brady here), and if we assume guilt, he should've been fined no more than $8,268. Anything more than that is a violation of the CBA.

So now, we're forced to assume that all the rest of his quarter-season suspension is because he failed to cooperate with the investigation by refusing to hand over his phone. Which, again, he absolutely positively does not have to do, and the NFLPA would've gone bonkers on him if he had. And the article goes into plenty of detail as to why this is ridiculous too, which I'll let you all read at your leisure.

None of what the NFL has tried to do here will stand up in court. The CBA alone ties their hands, and the fact that they've clearly violated it here kills any argument they may believe they have.

If your stunning legal analysis of the CBA is remotely accurate, Brady should fire his manager, the Patriots should fire their lawyers, and the rabid Pats fans should probably commit suicide because they've all been wasting their time (and credibility) with ridiculous meteorological arguments and paranoid whining about some anti-Patriots vendetta when the solution to all of your problems was right there in the player's handbook.

Whatever you think of Goodell he's not a complete moron and you must realize he'll have a carefully constructed legal argument to support the punishment imposed on Brady, especially in a high-profile case like this. Doesn't mean Brady can't ultimately win a reduction in court (I don't know the CBA and I'm not a labor law expert). But I'd suggest keeping your trousers dry until you see both sides' arguments in writing.

 

[Darwin18]

I'd love to see Stratslinger's legal analysis of the Hernandez trial while we're at it. You should totally quit your full time job and give out some free legal advice to all your favorite Patriot criminals.

 

[fosaisu]

I'd love to see Stratslinger's legal analysis of the Hernandez trial while we're at it. You should totally quit your full time job and give out some free legal advice to all your favorite Patriot criminals.

To be fair, patspulpit.com would be a great place to get sound legal advice (based on years of hard-won experience) on public intoxication, public urination, or drunk and disorderly charges. Remains to be seen if that legal prowess extends to labor law.

 

[Roadliner]

Stop - hold the bus!!!!

I take back everything I've said about any $25k fine of Brady being appropriate. As it turns out, even that much is a gross overstepping of what's allowed. (Stick with me Darwin, I'll try to use smallish words so you can follow - but repeat after me - No, the NFL cannot do whatever it damn well pleases.)

Check out the following article on details coming to light about the NFLPA's suit against the NFL over this whole hot mess...

The most relevant highlight to our conversation here? The ball pressure isn't even in the player's rulebook! It's in the "Game Operations Manual" that's provided for the benefit of the teams, and not published to the players. So, Brady's being penalized for being generally aware of a rule being broken that isn't even in any materials that are published for him or any of the other 51 guys on the Pats active roster.

But wait. There's more. (And Hoppy, this is gonna make you mad for Beastmode - definitely looks to me like he got shafted.)

The policies that ARE given out to players provide for specific, collectively bargained (see, that term!!!!) fines for equipment violations - the policies cite stickum or slippery compounds, for example. Nothing specific about ball pressure - though I grant that maybe that could fall into their catch-all about modifications that could grant a competitive advantage, assuming somewhere in there they include guidelines as to what pressures don't grant a competitive advantage. But since when do funny colored shoes grant any kind of competitive advantage? Beastmode got shafted. (Unless there's some other bit of the CBA that covers uniform colors and penalties for not adhering to them.)

And the Player Policies - again, under the CBA - specifically limit a first time offender to a fine of $8,268.

So. IF the Player Policies, or some other player-published rules state what the pressure should be in the football (and the NFLPA already established they do not - but we'll ignore that because everyone wants to ignore everything in favor of Brady here), and if we assume guilt, he should've been fined no more than $8,268. Anything more than that is a violation of the CBA.

So now, we're forced to assume that all the rest of his quarter-season suspension is because he failed to cooperate with the investigation by refusing to hand over his phone. Which, again, he absolutely positively does not have to do, and the NFLPA would've gone bonkers on him if he had. And the article goes into plenty of detail as to why this is ridiculous too, which I'll let you all read at your leisure.

None of what the NFL has tried to do here will stand up in court. The CBA alone ties their hands, and the fact that they've clearly violated it here kills any argument they may believe they have.

Are you trying to use another argument the Tom Brady doesn't know how a football is supposed to be? Since it wasn't in the players manual, he doesn't know any other rules governing the game of football?

You are right about him not having to provide his phone, legally. Doesn't mean his unwillingness to do so can't be used against him in a decision. Similar to a legal trial where a suspects silence can be used against them in a court of law even though they have the right to remain silent.

 

[day_trippr]

[...]You are right about him not having to provide his phone, legally. Doesn't mean his unwillingness to do so can't be used against him in a decision. Similar to a legal trial where a suspects silence can be used against them in a court of law even though they have the right to remain silent.

Having been empaneled through a manslaughter trial I assure you that your latter statement is not accurate - at least wrt judge instructions. Specifically, you cannot hold silence against the defendant - by established law.

Now, you could still make the claim that juries would ignore all that and hold silence against the defendant, but it's not supposed to be that way.

As for the whole phone thing, again, in an actual court of law, if there is no legal requirement to be met, there's no penalty. Unless the jury ignores the law.

Of course, none of that applies to private kangaroo courts that can make up anything they want on the fly - ala the NFL...

Cheers!

 

[fosaisu]

you cannot hold silence against the defendant - by established law. Now, you could still make the claim that juries would ignore all that and hold silence against the defendant, but it's not supposed to be that way.

Agreed and agreed. But here it's more a "court of public opinion" question -- does the fact that Brady destroyed his phone the morning he met with investigators make it more or less probable that he was trying to hide information relating to ball deflation? We've heard what Patriots fans think, and maybe an ardent Jets fan is biased in the other direction. But it doesn't take a degree in psychology to know what the average person that doesn't care at all about football would think when presented with these facts: it looks pretty suspect.

Of course, none of that applies to private kangaroo courts that can make up anything they want on the fly - ala the NFL...

But the NFL process is not a "kangaroo court" -- it's the process the player's union and NFL management (including Kraft) agreed to in the last round of collective bargaining. I'd bet that NFL players (including Brady) get much better protection from arbitrary management behavior than the average American worker! The court Brady's appealing to will be evaluating whether the NFL violated that agreement in punishing Brady as it did.

 

[HoppyDaze]

hey guys, shut up about it.

 

[Roadliner]

Having been empaneled through a manslaughter trial I assure you that your latter statement is not accurate - at least wrt judge instructions. Specifically, you cannot hold silence against the defendant - by established law.

Now, you could still make the claim that juries would ignore all that and hold silence against the defendant, but it's not supposed to be that way.

As for the whole phone thing, again, in an actual court of law, if there is no legal requirement to be met, there's no penalty. Unless the jury ignores the law.

Of course, none of that applies to private kangaroo courts that can make up anything they want on the fly - ala the NFL...

Cheers!

It's completely accurate and has legal precedent. one case being the 1992 conviction of Genovevo Salinas where his silence and refusal to answer during questioning was indeed used against him in court.

and also of course like you said.. even if ordered not to.. people use things in memory to make decisions. A judge can strike a statement frm the record all they want, but it will weigh in the mind of a jury. And also.. like you said.. it's the NFL commissioner's court as well, so even more bearing can hold on a refusal to cooperate in his mind.,

 

[day_trippr]

[...]But the NFL process is not a "kangaroo court" -- it's the process the player's union and NFL management (including Kraft) agreed to in the last round of collective bargaining. I'd bet that NFL players (including Brady) get much better protection from arbitrary management behavior than the average American worker! The court Brady's appealing to will be evaluating whether the NFL violated that agreement in punishing Brady as it did.

Totally ignore the fact that the penalties levied for the claimed infractions were never subjected to bargaining agreements - and are completely without precedent.

I'd say that's pretty standard kangaroo kourt stuff right there...

Cheers!

 

[fosaisu]

hey guys, shut up about it.

Oh crap guys, he's right, thought this was the thread for obnoxious football trash talk but it's actually the courteous cricket chat thread. Pulling my 'chute now!

 

[wobrien]

The most obnoxious thing in this thread is day-trippr's automatic "Cheers!" At the end of every post

 

[Roadliner]

Everything was without precedent at one time or another.

 

[day_trippr]

The most obnoxious thing in this thread is day-trippr's automatic "Cheers!" At the end of every post

Kindly GFY, noob.

Cheers!

 

[wobrien]

Oh crap guys, he's right, thought this was the thread for obnoxious football trash talk thread but it's actually the courteous cricket chat thread. Pulling my 'chute now!

You guys are certainly being obnoxious, but dissecting court cases and legal precedents is hardly football trash talk...

 

[fosaisu]

Totally ignore the fact that the penalties levied for the claimed infractions were never subjected to bargaining agreements - and are completely without precedent.

I'd say that's pretty standard kangaroo kourt stuff right there...

If you're right then you should have nothing to worry about once this case gets in front of a judge. I have trouble believing Goodell is stupid enough to have simply tossed the rulebook out the window, especially in a high-profile case like this, but given the conviction displayed by legal eagle Pats fans in recent days, sounds like a certainty that Brady will be vindicated in court!

 

[Roadliner]

It's about a football case, so.......

 

[wobrien]

zzzzzzzz

 

[fosaisu]

zzzzzzzz

Now that's obnoxious (but not football related).

 

[wobrien]

Kindly GFY, noob.

Cheers!

That's just uncalled for

 

[bluemoose]

Can we get back to talking about, even without Brady for the season, the Pats winning the Super Bowl by 20?

 

[FirstAidBrewing]

Can we get back to talking about, even without Brady for the season, the Pats winning the Super Bowl by 20?

No

 

[Cape Brewing]

They're still Super Bowl champs. Brady is still the GQBOAT. The Pats are still TMDTOTM.

It's all good

 

[bluemoose]

Relevant fact! ^^^

 

[wobrien]

*tbcotm

 

[Darwin18]

They're still Super Bowl champs. Brady is still the GQBOAT. The Pats are still TMDTOTM.

It's all good

See, that's we'd probably all being hearing about if only Brady wasn't a whinny little ***** *****. You only have him to blame for this obnoxiousness.

 

[DakotaRules]

That's the only banner Jets fans will ever see...

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are!

 

[stratslinger]

Just gonna leave this here

The rest of the league is doomed in 2015. Doomed.

 

[Darwin18]

Easy now. You're going to chafe it if you keep rubbing it to that video.

 

[finsfan]

That's just uncalled for

He said kindly...

 

[jpakstis]

See, that's we'd probably all being hearing about if only Brady wasn't a whinny little ***** *****. You only have him to blame for this obnoxiousness.

I know I'm wading in late on this one and also for the record I am a huge Patriots fan. But where exactly has Brady been whining? He had the one press conference two days after the Mortensen report where the Patriots still were reacting to that false report and then his Facebook post this past Wednesday morning.

I'm also an attorney (a criminal prosecutor to be exact) and this is the main thing that has been bothering me as this whole dopey "scandal" plays out: the NFL and Goodell have not been a disinterested third party. They have become advocates. The Wells report was written with a viewpoint in mind; every inference and "guess" was ultimately decided against the Patriots and Brady. And Goodell's decision on Tuesday was written with both an eye toward the eventual federal suit and with a preexisting viewpoint. More than that, he moved the goalposts. Wells said he didn't need the phone and that the physical phone wasn't at issue; now suddenly Goodell is making a big deal out of the "destroyed" phone in his decision.

I find it particularly odd that within minutes of issuing that decision on Tuesday the NFL lawyers were filing that suit for declaratory relief in New York federal court. That is really weird. The commissioner is under an obligation to issue his decision "as soon as practicable"; did they intentionally hold back on issuing the decision to coordinate with the writing and filing of that suit? Also, if you are secure in your decision, why do you need to file a suit for declaratory relief? As far as I know, there has never been such a filing with regard to player discipline before. Its akin to having a teacher look over your homework.

I know the Patriots will never win any popularity contest. But this type of behavior by the NFL is both unseemly and very troubling. Remember that Sean Payton lost an entire year for testifying truthfully and cooperating fully; the NFL basically said he should have known about the bounty program (a punishment which ultimately no players were suspended for). The Saints lost an entire year of contention in Brees' declining years. This sort of haphazard "investigation" and punishment could happen to any team.

 

[motobrewer]

i find it odd particularly that your face is stupid.

 

[JonGrafto]

Just gonna leave this here

The rest of the league is doomed in 2015. Doomed.

Goes to show how much the Patriots defense is going to blow this year.

 

[wobrien]

Goes to show how much the Patriots defense is going to blow this year.

The best patriots defenders are in this thread

 

[Roadliner]

I find it particularly odd that within minutes of issuing that decision on Tuesday the NFL lawyers were filing that suit for declaratory relief in New York federal court. That is really weird. The commissioner is under an obligation to issue his decision "as soon as practicable"; did they intentionally hold back on issuing the decision to coordinate with the writing and filing of that suit? Also, if you are secure in your decision, why do you need to file a suit for declaratory relief? As far as I know, there has never been such a filing with regard to player discipline before. Its akin to having a teacher look over your homework.

It's my understanding that Goodell isn't an idiot. He knew that there would be a suit filed against his decision. By filing it first the suit will be heard and decided in New York where they are based, and most likely have more friends that will take their side in the legal system.

 

[jpakstis]

It's my understanding that Goodell isn't an idiot. He knew that there would be a suit filed against his decision. By filing it first the suit will be heard and decided in New York where they are based, and most likely have more friends that will take their side in the legal system.

I agree completely. But the NFL has never taken that step before in its player discipline cases, so its very odd that they would now. And the timing of it is odd as well. As a prosecutor, we talk a lot about jury selection and (in my opinion) over-emphasize that process. If I have confidence in my case, my only objective is to find 12 people who will pay attention throughout the trial. My case should be strong enough that I will allow my evidence to be tested anywhere by anyone. The NFL, if it is confident in its decision, should not (and has not previously) relied on forum-shopping and such tactics. Its not telling, but it is odd.

 

[HoppyDaze]

I know I'm wading in late on this one and also for the record I am a huge Patriots fan. But where exactly has Brady been whining? He had the one press conference two days after the Mortensen report where the Patriots still were reacting to that false report and then his Facebook post this past Wednesday morning.

I'm also an attorney (a criminal prosecutor to be exact) and this is the main thing that has been bothering me as this whole dopey "scandal" plays out: the NFL and Goodell have not been a disinterested third party. They have become advocates. The Wells report was written with a viewpoint in mind; every inference and "guess" was ultimately decided against the Patriots and Brady. And Goodell's decision on Tuesday was written with both an eye toward the eventual federal suit and with a preexisting viewpoint. More than that, he moved the goalposts. Wells said he didn't need the phone and that the physical phone wasn't at issue; now suddenly Goodell is making a big deal out of the "destroyed" phone in his decision.

I find it particularly odd that within minutes of issuing that decision on Tuesday the NFL lawyers were filing that suit for declaratory relief in New York federal court. That is really weird. The commissioner is under an obligation to issue his decision "as soon as practicable"; did they intentionally hold back on issuing the decision to coordinate with the writing and filing of that suit? Also, if you are secure in your decision, why do you need to file a suit for declaratory relief? As far as I know, there has never been such a filing with regard to player discipline before. Its akin to having a teacher look over your homework.

I know the Patriots will never win any popularity contest. But this type of behavior by the NFL is both unseemly and very troubling. Remember that Sean Payton lost an entire year for testifying truthfully and cooperating fully; the NFL basically said he should have known about the bounty program (a punishment which ultimately no players were suspended for). The Saints lost an entire year of contention in Brees' declining years. This sort of haphazard "investigation" and punishment could happen to any team.

stopped reading after "huge Patriots fan"

 

[h22lude]

stopped reading after "huge Patriots fan"

Words too big for you?

 

[Roadliner]

I agree completely. But the NFL has never taken that step before in its player discipline cases, so its very odd that they would now. And the timing of it is odd as well. As a prosecutor, we talk a lot about jury selection and (in my opinion) over-emphasize that process. If I have confidence in my case, my only objective is to find 12 people who will pay attention throughout the trial. My case should be strong enough that I will allow my evidence to be tested anywhere by anyone. The NFL, if it is confident in its decision, should not (and has not previously) relied on forum-shopping and such tactics. Its not telling, but it is odd.

I think it's as simple as the magnitude of the case. This is obviously not a normal situation, and an example is being made. And there is a lot more at stake with it, than just ticking off Patriot's fans. So the Commissioner took steps to try and keep the player's union and Tom Brady form undermining his decision.

 

[jpakstis]

I think it's a simple as the magnitude of the case. This is obviously not a normal situation, and an example is being made. And there is a lot more at stake with it, than just ticking off Patriot's fans. So the Commissioner took steps to try and keep the player's union and Tom Brady form undermining his decision.

But I think this is part of the NFLPA's issue. Why is this case the one where the NFL is making an issue out of it? Players similarly situated are not being punished the same. Brady is ostensibly being punished for two alleged activities: being "generally aware" of a scheme to deflate footballs (a game-day issue) and for not cooperating with the investigation. In all other similar deflation/game-day investigations, the league either didn't do anything (the Vikings/Carolina game from last year) or fined them according to the game manual (the Chargers). If the the issue is non-cooperation, Favre didn't turn over his cell phone and so was docked $50K. This of course assumes that Brady actually did it. So maybe they are taking extraordinary steps because its unprecedented. But then again that's why the NFLPA has an issue with it.

Another problem is that the NFL is applying team conduct policies (the deflation regulations) on a player without notice. The only argument I can see the NFL making is that this is the way these types of cases will be decided from now on, i.e. any sort of game-day violation will from here on out will subject the violator to a 4 game suspension. But if that's the case, Brady did not know that would have been the consequence because it wasn't the "law of the land" when he allegedly did it.