No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

So, I have a friend* who will be going to Paris for the first time later in the fall. While she** would like to stay at Le Meurice or reenact Hemmingway's liberation of the Ritz, she is a mere working girl*** and the budget is probably more along the lines of a Marriott.

Airbnb.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Maybe. That's certainly plausible.

Well, that's surely the argument that won. But then what's the point of the conduct detrimental language if not to catch activity that hasn't occurred and that the league can't (or wouldn't think would be probable enough to) lay out? If Brady switched out the balls for balls that were twice as accurate because of some new technology, he only gets a $5,512 fine? If a player lines his forearms with steel and smashes another player's femur on a legal tackle, $5,512 fine? What's the point of the provision?

Maybe the answer is the language is so amorphous that by definition its very use violates DP's requirement of notice. I can buy that even if one would think that the League should be able to protect itself from shit it hasn't come across.

TM

You might be right about the second paragraph, but I'm not sure what happened here is so outside the bounds of what the NFL contemplated that it even reaches the point you think it does. Teams were heating balls on the sidelines in a late season game last year - no fine, just a warning. Aaron Rodgers talked about liking them overinflated. I don't see how the league couldn't think about deflating balls was a possibility.

Sure, there's a bit of a line - how about instead of stickum someone developed some new super-stickum product that adhered only to leather, and not grass, uniforms, crud? Or a sweat-activated grease that the refs couldn't detect pregame when they check linemen's arms? Or maybe greasy gatorade they could dump on each other on the sideline?

The basic point is that equipment violations have defined penalties, regardless of whether it's somehow the product of some grand conspiracy versus blatantly done in plain view of everyone. Remember back to the pine tar homer? The commissioner ruled that the penalty for using an over-tarred bat is the bat should be removed from play, so Brett's homerun should stand. What if he had used chicanery to use that bat - should the penalty be different? The penalty for using an over-curved hockey stick is 2 minutes. Should the league start penalizing players more if somehow a player is swapping in sticks quietly that violate the rule?

The worst that Brady and the Patriots got away with is playing with balls that were slightly underinflated (before weather had an effect). Whatever advantage that conferred is the same whether they slipped it past the refs, used a needle on the sideline, or had the deflator take an unnecessary bathroom break. Why should the penalty be different?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

You might be right about the second paragraph, but I'm not sure what happened here is so outside the bounds of what the NFL contemplated that it even reaches the point you think it does. Teams were heating balls on the sidelines in a late season game last year - no fine, just a warning. Aaron Rodgers talked about liking them overinflated. I don't see how the league couldn't think about deflating balls was a possibility.

Sure, there's a bit of a line - how about instead of stickum someone developed some new super-stickum product that adhered only to leather, and not grass, uniforms, crud? Or a sweat-activated grease that the refs couldn't detect pregame when they check linemen's arms? Or maybe greasy gatorade they could dump on each other on the sideline?

The basic point is that equipment violations have defined penalties, regardless of whether it's somehow the product of some grand conspiracy versus blatantly done in plain view of everyone. Remember back to the pine tar homer? The commissioner ruled that the penalty for using an over-tarred bat is the bat should be removed from play, so Brett's homerun should stand. What if he had used chicanery to use that bat - should the penalty be different? The penalty for using an over-curved hockey stick is 2 minutes. Should the league start penalizing players more if somehow a player is swapping in sticks quietly that violate the rule?

The worst that Brady and the Patriots got away with is playing with balls that were slightly underinflated (before weather had an effect). Whatever advantage that conferred is the same whether they slipped it past the refs, used a needle on the sideline, or had the deflator take an unnecessary bathroom break. Why should the penalty be different?

We're way into hypotheticals at this point because I think Goodell acted unreasonably and I agree that the punishment is based more on his jackassery (saving face, popular opinion, other owners' expectations, punishment for past chicanery) than the actual alleged behavior.

That said, heating balls on the sideline, applying stickum, using an overly-curved hockey stick all falls into one category. If you take the worst-case scenario as fact in the Patriots case, having your quarterback instruct your equipment managers to deflate balls after the refs have inspected them and then engaging in a cover-up, destroying evidence, and refusing to cooperate with the investigation puts you in a different category, no? I think that's the type of shit that the conduct detrimental language is supposed to cover.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If you take the worst-case scenario as fact in the Patriots case, having your quarterback instruct your equipment managers to deflate balls after the refs have inspected them and then engaging in a cover-up, destroying evidence, and refusing to cooperate with the investigation puts you in a different category, no? I think that's the type of shit that the conduct detrimental language is supposed to cover.

TM

I can see the conduct detrimental covering the underlined part, although other than for Goodell's made-up claims in that regard I don't see that as occurring - not sure what "cover up" there was, Brady provided all the texts to Wells's satisfaction, as noted in the report, declining only to provide his phone physically (destroyed after Wells was done), and the only refusal to cooperate was not making the deflator available for a fifth interview, or something like that. Bear in mind that in every other instance of such obstruction, the league issued only a fine.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I can see the conduct detrimental covering the underlined part, although other than for Goodell's made-up claims in that regard I don't see that as occurring - not sure what "cover up" there was, Brady provided all the texts to Wells's satisfaction, as noted in the report, declining only to provide his phone physically (destroyed after Wells was done), and the only refusal to cooperate was not making the deflator available for a fifth interview, or something like that. Bear in mind that in every other instance of such obstruction, the league issued only a fine.

Not going to argue any of that. Although I have the feeling that there's some shit Brady and the Patriots did that we don't know about and there's lots of shit the League is making it seem is way worse than it is.

But Berman's decision really does seem to render the conduct detrimental language unenforceable unless supported by a detailed rule. And that makes it completely pointless.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is just plain stupid. The league's disciplinary and appeals process is a joke. You think the fact that he wants to overturn the decision based on that process means he wants to vindicate Brady? What are you smoking?

No, I was trying to ask you how you explain what Berman did? Earlier, you said that the fact that he ruled for Brady on the law doesn't mean that he saw it Brady's way on the facts. But then you suggested that he didn't really care about the legal analysis -- that he was otherwise looking for a reason to rule for Brady. But if it wasn't the facts and it wasn't the law, what was it?

In your world conjecture magically turns into "a close reading." Fuck outta here.

I read the decision close enough to see the scarequotes. I still can't tell what, if anything, you read.

You cherry picked part of the decision on that point. Burger and I were discussing the other sections, dumbass. If you don't want to discuss the other sections, then kick rocks.

You have all these neat rhetorical tricks to avoid ever saying anything about what Berman actually said. Berman was just looking for a way to rule for Brady. The legal points are technicalities. I'm biased. I'm cherry-picking. It's like watching an lesson in how to get through a law school class without having done the homework. If it works for you, go with it. But Burger and I were discussing the same portion of the decision. (Go back to where I quoted, "First offenses will result in fines." The next sentence has the $5,512 number Burger has mentioned a couple of times.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Hank is right. Your world may be filled with the intricacies of employment law and close readings of decisions only you can perform because of your vast and always on point expertise, but you have proven time and time again that you don't know shit about any sport you're discussing.

TM

And you are just being a jackass, which you do know shit about. If you (or Hank, but he's just trolling) really think that it doesn't hurt a team to guess wrong about what play is coming, and you really think it's because you know so much about the sport, then you could explain it. But you don't, because that's not really your point. You're just enjoying being a jackass.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Uh...wrong. I respond with substance AND insults. If start an argument with, "Well, I have some experience in employment law, so here's why my opinion means something a little more," you deserve to be insulted. It's like the jackass at the cocktail party who jumps in and says, "Well, I'm a lawyer and here's what I think of the marriage equality decision." Yeah. You're a dick.

TM

When I'm at a cocktail party, I don't mention that I'm a lawyer. When I'm on an internet chat board with a bunch of lawyers, the context is different. You surely understand this, because I've met you IRL and I can't believe you are ever as much of a jackass in person as the way you behave here.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, I was trying to ask you how you explain what Berman did? Earlier, you said that the fact that he ruled for Brady on the law doesn't mean that he saw it Brady's way on the facts. But then you suggested that he didn't really care about the legal analysis -- that he was otherwise looking for a reason to rule for Brady. But if it wasn't the facts and it wasn't the law, what was it?

This is absolutely incorrect. I said he wanted to overturn Goodell's decision. You incorrectly read into it what you wanted to hear, because that's what you do. Hell, you apparently can't even tell you're doing it.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I read the decision close enough to see the scarequotes. I still can't tell what, if anything, you read.

You are completely full of shit. You interpreted it in a way that suits your world view and you can hear nothing else.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You have all these neat rhetorical tricks to avoid ever saying anything about what Berman actually said. Berman was just looking for a way to rule for Brady.

This is an absolute lie. You get so pissy if people don't want to discuss something on your limited terms and myopic reading. I am currently having a discussion about the exact same topic with someone who can reasonably go back and forth on the points.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The legal points are technicalities. I'm biased. I'm cherry-picking.

Only when it applies. Berman discussed more than just the fact that the Player Policies are what should apply when discussing notice. You isolated that part of the decision and have acted like that's all there is to it.

And you are absolutely biased. We've talked about a lot of what has gone on with the Patriots and you really have only considered one side, whether it be Spygate or Deflategate. As far as you're concerned this is a complete snowjob because everyone is jealous of the Patriots and Brady, and Goodell is an egotistical asshole (that last part I give you credit for). Hell, you are so far up Belichick's ass that you can't admit that handing the ball off to the most dominant back in a situation tailormade for him was a mistake. You think Belichick tricked the Seahawks into passing and worked the clock to make it the only choice. I have never, ever seen you admit that the Patriots may have done something wrong.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's like watching an lesson in how to get through a law school class without having done the homework.

You keep saying this. I read the opinion. But because you're such a pompous asshole with all this on point experience, you seem to think that everyone should bow down to your reading of the opinion. That's not how it works, especially when you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If it works for you, go with it. But Burger and I were discussing the same portion of the decision. (Go back to where I quoted, "First offenses will result in fines." The next sentence has the $5,512 number Burger has mentioned a couple of times.)

Yes, but Burger has the ability to go beyond that specific portion of the decision to discuss the other portions the judge addressed. You do not.

I like to argue. I throw insults and take them. No big deal. I consider them emphasis. You like to post links. When someone questions your own thoughts, you can't take it and you throw a fit and talk about your experience or how carefully you read something as some sort of implication that you're the smartest guy you know. It doesn't help your argument.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And you are just being a jackass, which you do know shit about. If you (or Hank, but he's just trolling) really think that it doesn't hurt a team to guess wrong about what play is coming, and you really think it's because you know so much about the sport, then you could explain it. But you don't, because that's not really your point. You're just enjoying being a jackass.

A linebacker may be the smartest player on the field. They are looking at most of the offensive players, looking for tendencies. Maybe a guard inadvertently angles his right foot inward when he is going to draw the next play. It doesn't mean he bets the farm the draw is coming, but when it starts to come he is reacting to it much quicker, he had it as a higher possibility. And of course he is ready if that read is wrong, and he has to go into pass coverage.

Knowing a 50% chance on what play is coming is not like Hitler refusing to send tanks to Normandy because he knows it's coming at Pas-de-Calais. You do not commit to that extent, they read and change up. Hell, QBs audible.

A defense that knows the exact play 50% of the time is going to have a real good day. The plays they are right are stopped cold. The others they are harmed very little.

But I'm a troll, so believe your odd confused views.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And you are just being a jackass, which you do know shit about. If you (or Hank, but he's just trolling) really think that it doesn't hurt a team to guess wrong about what play is coming, and you really think it's because you know so much about the sport, then you could explain it. But you don't, because that's not really your point. You're just enjoying being a jackass.

he shoots too much in basketball.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And you are just being a jackass, which you do know shit about. If you (or Hank, but he's just trolling) really think that it doesn't hurt a team to guess wrong about what play is coming, and you really think it's because you know so much about the sport, then you could explain it. But you don't, because that's not really your point. You're just enjoying being a jackass.

I don't have to explain it to people who know what they're talking about. But I will explain it to you.

If the Patriots did indeed have a multi-year, extensive scheme of filming and evaluating signs that they used in their defensive and offensive schemes, they gained an advantage. What you don't seem to understand is that if Belichick wasn't sure about whether or not the sign they were stealing was correct, he probably wouldn't set up a highly specific defense to stop it or an offense to take advantage of it. But if he was able to pick out 3 or 4 (or whatever number) that he was sure of based on his extensive, illegal analysis, he had a true advantage. A good example is when the Eagles blitzed the Patriots in the Superbowl. Apparently the Patriots just happened to throw a screen pass (the perfect play against the blitz) whenever they faced a blitz.

What Hank is talking about is the ability to hedge one's bets based on what Belichick may have thought was a play he had figured out. If you think you know a pass play is coming and you employ a dime defense, but hedge your bets against the run by pushing your linebacker up closer to the line, you may not be harmed by calling a pass-based defensive set.

But that's completely beside the point, because on the plays that you're sure of (like, apparently defenses which were set up perfectly for plays that other teams hadn't run that Belichick allegedly knew about because he had guys hiding their identity filming run-throughs), it's a tremendous advantage. To say that they were wrong 50% of the time, like this cancels out when they were right, is colossally stupid.

TM

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Airbnb.

TM

She hadn't thought of that - thanks.

And thanks to adder, GGG, Sidd, RT, and anyone else who answered that I forgot for all of the helpful information.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When I'm at a cocktail party, I don't mention that I'm a lawyer. When I'm on an internet chat board with a bunch of lawyers, the context is different. You surely understand this, because I've met you IRL and I can't believe you are ever as much of a jackass in person as the way you behave here.

Yes. Here we all understand that we are each lawyers with different specialties who have all gone to law school, and that we are each capable of reading an opinion and drawing a conclusion. If you have a factual analysis that relates to your specialty (as RT often does), it is welcomed. You offer up your experience as some sort of shorthand for why your opinion should be valued. And if you were sitting in front of me and you did that, I would tell you to your face to get the fuck outta here with that bullshit.

TM

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When I'm at a cocktail party, I don't mention that I'm a lawyer. When I'm on an internet chat board with a bunch of lawyers, the context is different. You surely understand this, because I've met you IRL and I can't believe you are ever as much of a jackass in person as the way you behave here.

When I'm at a cocktail party, I'm drinking cocktails. Strong cocktails and lots of them. Probably gin. If you got up in my face with your fucking "I know about employment law" bullshit, I would bust a cap in your ass and take your woman. And then you'd probably come here and whine like a little bitch about what a jackass I am in real life, but I wouldn't give a fuck because I would have your woman and all you would have is a cap in your ass and a pathetic little chatting board to whine to.