Than who DID decided on the 4 games? Maybe I missed something.

In any case, the suspension IMO will be at a minimum reduced, and most likely overturned.

Anyone with a brain knows that if you inflate a ball or anything else in a warm room and then take it out in cold weather it will drop in poundage. There is no one to blame but the refs. this is stupid beyond belief.

Do you really think the deflation was a natural occurrence? Even after knowing that there were text messages between equipment managers specifically related to deflating the footballs to Brady's liking? I'm just curious how you can maintain that the footballs deflated naturally despite explicit text messages that say otherwise from the people who handle equipment.

True. But you have to look at the flip side of it too. If you take the same footballs that you're saying lost pressure due to the cold weather and move them back into a warm room (which was done for testing purposes at half time), the footballs should then gain pressure due to expansion from the warm air. Is this not true? Then how can you blame the weather??? :confused:

Ask "The Deflator" :p

A few minutes inside won't warm them to room temperature, an hour + outside is enough to cool them completely.

An interesting take here on a few inconsistencies in the report. Not all of the reporters points are valid, but some seem to be. I especially don't think numbers 10 and 3 are valid. The rest seem to make at least some sense.

Steve B
http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015...ys-suspension/

Excellent! Now, can you explain the Mpemba Effect? :D:D

:confused:Troy Vincent handles suspensions.

This thread summarized:
Patriots are CHEATERS
Brady suspended
Suspension upheld
Justice served
End of story

My summary: the NFL does not care about real issues like head trauma to players, or domestic violence. Ray Rice two games for beating the crap out of his fiancée, Tom Brady four for "probably" knowing about taking a little air out of a football. End of story.

Man it drives me nuts that people still don't think he knew about the footballs.

It drives me nuts that Goodell denies the connection between football and brain injuries despite overwhelming evidence.

It drives me nuts that these players make millions of dollars in a very rough sport and then are so stupid/worthless that they try to sue over head trauma.

Also how do you justify comparing Brady and the Cheatriots ruining the integrity of the game with some players off the field actions. Yes they done horrible things but in no way did it affect the outcome of a single game.

This is a power struggle between Kraft and goodell. Both are vipers.

What is this, ancient Rome where we sacrifice people for entertainment value? The NFL could do much much more to protect its players, but chooses to play ostrich. And because they deny the risks many of the young men who take them are certainly not fully informed.

If a lineman gets away with a hold that springs a back for the winning touchdown, did that "cheating" affect the integrity of the game?

LOL Young men not being fully informed. Peter this isn't 1815. They choose to do what they do for the large pay checks and ignore anything bad. It is the American way to blame everything on someone/something else. Would hate for anyone to actually take responsibility for their own actions.

I don't agree that they are fully informed. Their employer is denying it. Before that their colleges denied it. The team doctors are telling them it's ok to go back into the game with a concussion. Where's the full disclosure?

And all that aside, why won't the NFL do more to protect its players, whether or not they understand the risks?

It isn't 1815 Ben, it's ancient Rome and the arena. But let's keep all that hush hush and worry about a football underinflated by 1 PSI.

Time for a new Puppet?
 

-from ESPN.com:

Once again, it's on. This is civil war.

An enraged Robert Kraft reopened the door Wednesday morning to every NFL Armageddon scenario imaginable, right up to the eventual ouster of commissioner Roger Goodell. Kraft's renewed disgust with the league's handling of Deflategate, and most recently its decision to uphold Tom Brady's four-game suspension, should put the entire industry on notice.

Consider: The New England Patriots are the NFL's second-most valuable team, worth an estimated $2.6 billion, according to Forbes magazine. Kraft is the chairman of the NFL's broadcast committee, arguably the most important in the sport, and he was among the most responsible for Goodell's ascension to commissioner in 2006. Now, here we are with Kraft using words such as "unfathomable" to describe the league's actions. He is openly accusing the league of trying to capture headlines while obscuring its lack of hard evidence.

To be clear, Kraft's reaction is unprecedented in modern NFL history.

It's true that the late Al Davis subverted league rule at every opportunity during his time as the Oakland Raiders' managing partner, but he did so with the full understanding that he was a counterculture rebel whose opinions were never taken seriously. Within league circles, Kraft has never been Al Davis. His opposition here is understandable from a standpoint of loyalty but also counter to the one-for-all ethos that the league and its owners expect from one another.

You can argue the significance of football inflation all you want. Reasonable people can debate the extent of culpability for both the Patriots and Brady. What is indisputable, however, is that one of the league's most powerful owners, and one of its marquee franchises, is in open public rebellion for the first time that anyone can remember.

Kraft now regrets his decision to give up this fight in the spring, and it's unlikely he'll back down again any time soon. This dispute has turned into a full-fledged internal war.

Hang on. Anything could happen.
.
.

The only thing better than Kraft was Belichick's complete non-responses to questions. Highly amusing.

Well, you have to understand Mr. Kraft's point of view:

What has he gotten for a return on his investment?

oh yeah, there's THAT, but money, even M-O-N-E-Y, isn't everything, right?

- well, maybe not, but THAT much money is darn close!
.
.
I think Mr. Kraft should IPO his franchise to share this burden he has carried so bravely for so long.

I'd buy a share - Wouldn't you?
.
.

???????
 

Are you suggesting Tom Brady beat the tar out of his wife??

Popcorn season
 

Can't wait-- the NFL v. Patriots/Brady in two federal court cases, even though one will likely be stayed or dismissed. Arrogance vs. Incompetence. Buh, buh, buh, buh---I'm lovin' it!

Hope it goes the proverbial 15 rounds with each side throwing haymakers. Air out that dirty laundry --spill those dirty little secrets. Could prove more entertaining than the Republican debates.

No offense to football players but if by now you aren't informed enough about concussions and football related injuries it is because you are either willfully ignorant or there is no reaching you. So I have trouble finding sympathy for those that later experience the side effects of football. Of course I have nothing but sympathy for their families and the results of their careers. But I don't support the lawsuits.

So you expect some kid to stand up to a team doctor and coach telling him it's ok to go back in? Or to form a judgment that even though the league is saying there is no evidence, there really is? I don't think that's realistic.

20 years ago head trauma was brought up as often then as it is now involving football players. So if the players don't know they have been living in a cave or choose to ignore it for the big payday.

The NFL now is like kids playing candyland compared to 20-30 years ago with the much better protective gear and rules changes. I am not saying there is not a lot of physician contact but no where near as bad as before. So IMO they have done a lot to protect the players. Whether it is enough or not is debatable.

I could really care less about the 1 PSI debate as I really take the NFL as serious as I take the WWE or whatever they call wrestling entertainment these days.

I can't help, but think of what else is being destroyed in New England right now.

Why not? The NCAA knew about concussions and had a recommended protocol for dealing with them - in the 1930s. The NFL ignored all that, lied about the damage concussions do, hired a non-brain expert to be their concussions guy, and so on. And, even after implementing a protocol, you still got nonsense like the Colt McCoy incident.

I'm not saying I'd support a lawsuit filed by a current player but somebody who retired 10-20 years ago? Sure thing.

I see it the same way I do boxing. If you were a professional fighter being punched in the head for a living, can you really claim you didn't know being punched in the head would have a negative effect on your life?

Playing football is violent and even if someone is telling you that you're fine, you're the one who ultimately decides to play. So if there is someone who is liable for your injuries, it's my opinion that the person you're looking to point your finger at is yourself.

A huge +1 well said.

Edit: maybe being a former boxer is clouding my judgement. I have definatelly been hit in the head a lot.

This isn't quite the same thing, but 30 years ago I played football in High School. There wasn't a day in practice or a game when I didn't see "stars" from some hit. The word concussion wasn't even in our vocabulary and it never was mentioned (from what I can recall :rolleyes:). Today things are different, as safety, concussions and head trauma prevention is the number one concern on our HS team, and safety first is pervasive in every action the team takes.

No money at the HS level which is why they are conscientious. Take it up to the next level and then the next, and money starts to trump morals.

Which brings us right to what I was going to post about the suspension being upheld. 4 weeks out - plus the bye in week 5 leaves Brady coming back in week 6 against? The Colts. And it's already scheduled as the primetime game.

There's the money right there.

The potential spectacle of a well rested Brady coming into the colts game having had 5+ weeks to do nothing but study film.....It'll either be an epic blowout or a rout of the current "bad guy" who comes back rusty. Figure a 50-50 split in the hopes of the fans, and a bit of premium pricing on the ads? That's a can't lose PR win for the NFL in general.


On the other points.

The NFL hasn't done enough about head injuries. Look at the helmet tech in motorsports especially the more expensive divisions like F1. The sort of stuff those guys walk away from (Sometimes literally ) Is far rougher than an NFL hit.

They're also very inconsistent in punishments. Ray Rice gets 2 games eventually a season, back to 2 games in court, Brady 4 One may have known someone else was playing with the footballs or even asked that they do that. The other committed an actual crime that was recorded on video. That's a mess. Adrian Peterson got essentially a full season suspension, which was appropriate. Both Came after the debacle with Ray Rice and it could be argued that their punishments were more severe because of that earlier controversy.

The person handing out the suspension also being the one to hear the appeal I hope needs no explanation as to why it's not appropriate.

Steve B

"The person handing out the suspension also being the one to hear the appeal I hope needs no explanation as to why it's not appropriate."

I’m one who doesn’t get a lot of heartburn over that. It is not that unusual for a judge who has made a ruling in a case to be presented with a motion for reconsideration, in which he or she is presented with (supposedly) new arguments or evidence that politely suggest the decision previously rendered should be overturned. One rationale for this is to allow the decision-maker who is alleged to have erred an opportunity to correct the mistake without the need to bother or provide additional work for the appellate forum up the chain. Although reconsideration motions seldom succeed, so long as there is available a further and reasonable avenue of appeal in front of someone else, in this case a Federal District Court, then I don’t consider it a big deal for Goodell to act as he did. Maybe it's not the best system, but I do not see it so fundamentally flawed as the NFLPA argues. This is particularly so when the “integrity of the game” is the issue, whether or not you think the rules for equipment violations rise to that level; in that event, the Commissioner is aptly suited and perhaps the best qualified to decide, and not some disinterested party who presumably is somewhat removed from the game and its industry.

I’ve stopped investing much time in this, so maybe others can research or remind me of what all happened earlier, but if I recall, the whole process was collectively bargained, so the union had an opportunity to negotiate a different disciplinary process and ultimately agreed to this one. I also thought when Goodell first looked into this he delegated the matter to Troy Vincent, to which the NFLPA objected also, saying Goodell himself should preside. Had they been granted their wish, there would be even less independence when he heard an appeal of his own, wholly-made initial decision. You may think he simply rubber-stamped his delegated representative’s recommendation or ruling, and/or that the law firm hired to investigate and report was biased, but at least in theory there were other sets of eyes and ears on these issues as part of the process. I am not convinced the union or its clients had the right to expect fully unassociated, agreed-upon arbiters and fact-finders appointed for this case, or that the failure to provide same results in a breach of either the collective bargaining agreement or fundamental fairness.

Big difference, Todd. A judge is a neutral with no stake in the outcome.

Then don't allow the Commissioner to be any part of the disciplinary process. Bargain and negotiate accordingly.

How is it apparently OK for the Commish to hear the initial matter so long as someone else hears the appeal-- is he not just as biased as a stakeholder in the first step as the second? So what's the difference if the aggrieved player get's "homered" in stage one or stage two, so long as there is a stage 3 before a neutral? Is justice really set on its ear? And if so, how did the union agree to such a fundamentally flawed arrangement?

The union got outmaneuvered obviously.

BTW, what is Goodell's stake in the outcome? He has an incentive to punish one of the most high-profile franchises in the league and its golden boy, do no wrong QB? He loves the negative publicity and acrimony that builds up from his decision? Who brought all of this on in the first place?

The backlash would have been enormous had he reduced the suspension. Can you imagine the accusations of giving in to pressure from Kraft, intimidation, weakness, favoritism for Brady and the Patriots, etc.?

That argument is unpersuasive Peter. There's plenty of backlash as it is. Besides, many would have been in favor of a reduction without concluding that he had "caved"; hell, by most accounts Goodell was trying hard to reach a settlement without rendering a decision on the appeal at all, one which would have provided a reduced suspension--perhaps greatly reduced-- so I find it a stretch to believe he felt pressured to stick to the four-game penalty. It was Brady's side that was unaccommodating if not down right rigid in continuing this charade that he did no wrong and that anything greater than zero games would be appealed.

There may be several meaty points on appeal worth consideration. My point was that this crying about Goodell's position in the process is weak, and that it was agreed-upon in an arm's length negotiation. Good luck making that "we were outmaneuvered, obviously" argument to the District Court judge.

Straw man Todd. You asked how it happened, I said they were outmaneuvered. I never said that would be a good argument to a court.

And if he had reduced it to one game -- the most this piddly crap deserved -- I think he would have faced severe criticism from all the "integrity of the game" people who think one PSI is more important than concussions and brain injuries.

Thanks Todd and Peter for the interesting views on Goodell hearing the appeal.

I wasn't aware of the motion for reconsideration. Somehow the news about cases always misses that. Unless it's not common. But from what I've read here it seems like a motion for reconsideration isn't unusual? In the news it always seems to be case/appeal/bigger appeal/ and eventually maybe the supreme court if it's important enough or someone being out of options if it isn't (Or if they're just plain wrong )

That part of the process makes sense the way Todd has explained it.

I wasn't really concerned much about it to begin with although it seemed wrong. But now I'm thinking it's ok. One of the things that struck me during the lead in to the appeal was that the NFLPA apparently could ask for an arbitrator and did but Goodell rejected that request. I'm sure there was some behind the scenes stuff we may never know.

And yes, for sure the backlash would have been enormous.

What do you think about not using the existing rule and penalty? It seems to me that without the public outcry, it would have been the required 25K fine, maybe for each ball and that would be the end of it. (Probably another example of the laymans understanding of legal stuff being incomplete at best - I hear fairly often that someones prior record can't be used. Maybe at sentencing it can but not earlier? )

Steve B

Steve, the path for a labor dispute under a collective bargaining agreement is very different from the path of a court case typically initiated in a trial level court. Here, the "appeal" is in the first instance to the Commissioner and THEN to a federal district (trial) court. A normal federal court case would be initiated at the district court level, with an appeal to a federal appeals court, and a (typically) discretionary appeal from there to the US Supreme Court. There is a similar path for state court cases.

Cool! I've learned a few interesting things today :)

Steve B

In a court case, you don't hear about motions for reconsideration all that much because the grounds are very narrow. You can't just ask a court to take another look at what it just did. And even at that, the overwhelming majority are denied.

While motions for reconsideration are somewhat unusual, motions for new trial are not, and in fact are often a pre-requisite to an appeal. Such motions are another example of letting the same judge re-visit the outcome over which he himself presided, by arguing that certain errors in the trial require that a decision be reversed. Again these are not widely granted, but they represent situations where the same decision-maker is basically asked to undo what was done before. The fact that your chances of winning are not good does not make the process fundamentally unfair, as again these provide an opportunity for correction of errors while still preserving a party's right to appeal to another forum.

Steve you raise some good points. I believe part of the issue here was not just the footballs from the game in question, but that upon investigation it seems this activity had been going on for awhile or at least on previous occasions. This made the league concerned about a team trying to gain an unfair competitive edge--cheating-- on possibly a regular and systematic basis, which could be perceived as affecting the integrity of the game. Brady's response and manner of handling the matter was seen as evasive or maybe obstructionist, which took this thing way beyond just an equipment violation. And yes, the Patriots' history was quite possibly a factor. Prior bad acts generally are not admissible when determining whether someone is guilty/liable of a new charge, but there can be exceptions--although as noted, this being a labor dispute, civil or criminal court rules do not necessarily translate and apply.

I think I'm going to take a break from this whole thing for awhile-- I doubt many or maybe any have changed their positions since this story first broke and I really have no strong preference as to the outcome.

Yes, I think NFL football equates almost exactly to the gladiator battles in ancient Rome in that it serves the same purpose for the spectators. The main difference is that the deaths and dismemberments were socially acceptable for ancient Romans. Still, NFL players are committing the violence that we aren't allowed to, and that fills some void that many of us need filled. We would probably enjoy it more if we used prison inmates, kept them in cages beneath the stadiums and simply drug them off to the hospital when injured. Like gladiators, we would still have our favorites and they would be given special meals and women if they performed well.

But none of that has anything to do with Deflate-gate. As Jeff mentioned in a main board thread, follow the money to get your answers.