Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 11:55 AM) You didnt answer. How does obstructing the investigation (which no player in the NFL has been suspended for) equal 4 games? Even if we give the NFL the benefit of every fact that Brady purposefully destroyed his phone, there is no precedent for 4 games. According to the ruling no player had ever even been given 1 game. Like I said if the NFL was reasonable and gave him 1 game I doubt they lose, but 4 games was just way too much. Because this is different from the prior situations. In bountygate people just didn't cooperate. They weren't destroying evidence. (edit: and it was also JUST the obstruction, not a violation and a subsequent attempt to hide it, at least per the quoted statement from Tagliabue.) And doesn't a precedent have to start somewhere? I'm not saying 4 was a great number, but I didn't think it was egregious either. Knock it down to one or two, i'm fine with that. I think Goodell should have the right to suspend players from games if they're actively obstructing an investigation into a player/coach/personnel violation. If that's not on the table, why would any franchise ever permit any investigation by the NFL? Grab a fall guy, tell him to destroy everything, pay the fine later. You've chopped away the NFL's ability to self control which it collectively bargained for with the players.

QUOTE (The Gooch @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 11:55 AM) They shouldn't have the right to look at his phone. Look at what happened when he gave up his other phone, texts leaked about his pool and some stuff he said about Peyton Manning. Maybe he was trying to hide something on the phone and it wasn't even related to deflated footballs. He shouldn't be suspended for not giving up his phone. I wouldn't give my phone to my boss. The NFL told his lawyers they could redact all personal messages from the phone. That was never an issue.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 11:53 AM) Easy language could have been written giving the NFL the authority to suspend players and coaches for acts that violate the competitive rules of the game or something like that. And there wouldn't be an argument that that's too broad and vague and therefore not proper notice? Realistically how's that any different than conduct detrimental to the league?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 11:50 AM) Lets not forget the Patriots received a huge penalty. I think all things being equal that the end result is probably slightly harsh on the Patriots. (edit) You also keep failing to recognize that never before had anyone who was caught tampering with footballs been given anything close to this harsh of a penalty. Even if it was just 1 game I think the NFL probably wins here. But 4 games was pretty ridiculous when the other instances were mere warning or fines. see above

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 11:47 AM) "Some kind of punishment" is maybe a fine, maybe, if the NFL could even reliably show that the balls were underinflated (they initially seemed unaware that ambient temperature affects pressure, and they used two different gauges and don't know which was used for which measurements). Missing a quarter of a season? Ridiculous, and exactly why he's been slapped down. Again. If it was just about deflating footballs I would totally agree with you. The extra step of destroying the phone warrants a suspension IMO.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:58 AM) Because the judge found its more appropriate to apply the rule that said competitive advantage for equipment was a fine. They point to specific incidents where a ball was tampered with (being heated) and they were given a warning. And non-cooperation has happened before, the Judge specifically referenced that no player had ever been suspended for obstruction. (See Page 20) The law requires due process. According to the rules given to Brady, cheating by manipulating equipment was a fine. No one had ever received any penalty greater than a fine for that. If the law says that the maximum penalty for stealing is 5 years, they cant sentence me to death. In the judge's opinion (and Im just explaining the decision), there were established rules/penalties and Goodell went beyond them arbitrarily. As such that violates CBA law and the decision can be overturned. Whether he is right or not, its definitely concerning what Goodell is trying to do. I also think that ultimately the judge is trying to say to Goodell that he cant just merely make s*** up as he goes, even if thats what the strictest reading of the CBA may suggest. That there are always fundamental due process principles and he has to at least give the players a chance. But again, you're asking the NFL to come up with language in a CBA for every potential violation by a player. That's an impossible task, hence the catch all provision the commissioner was given by the players. I can understand reigning that power in when it's not applied fairly or justly, but I don't see that here. I can totally understand and get behind the rationale of comparing this situation to a 1st time steroid user - you tried to cheat and even though it didn't result in wins/losses, you still tried and got caught. And just because I don't have direct proof of it, I have circumstantial evidence, including your deliberate attempt to destroy evidence that the NFL wanted for its investigation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 11:32 AM) I think this deadspin article basically captures my sentiments See, I guess that's my problem. I mean, again, this whole thing was a farce and ridiculous, but we all know Brady was involved. And we all know he destroyed his phone to destroy direct evidence linking him to it. And yet based on some pretty weak technicalities, we don't get the result we all think is appropriate (some kind of punishment).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:42 AM) Allegedly violated a rule and allegedly tried to hide it. The NFL couldn't anticipate a player not cooperating with an investigation? Not allegedly, Goodell ruled that he did. That's the point of the process.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:30 AM) Well it matters because according to the ruling it seems that the lack of notice of the potential penalty violates the "law of shop". (Langhorne) Which basically said that in order for the violation to be enforceable the rule must be clear and unambiguous as well as the consequence of the violation. (see footnote page 27 of ruling) Under the player policy which Brady was given, the violation for deflating balls was a fine for competitive equipment. Brady never received notice of something else called the "Competitive Integrity Policy" which was only given to executives and coaches. (See page 30) Previous precedent made it so that the NFL was not allowed to retroactively apply the policy. (See page 30) The Judge then went on to say that the comparison to conduct detrimental policy in the steroids cases was bad because those players were suspended after there were findings specifically under the domestic violence policy. Basically since Brady was told a competitive equipment advantage would only be a fine, it was ultimately unfair to suspend him when he had no idea that was the penalty. But again, this hasn't happened before, which the NFL admitted. You've got a player that violated a rule and then tried to hid it. Why should there be a requirement of notice to something not anticipated by either the NFL or the players union? And why cut away the conduct detrimental clause, which was included precisely in these situations as a catch all? And didn't Goodell rule that Brady was involving with the deflation? If not, the fact that he believed he was involved but didn't specifically rule/conclude that he was definitely, isn't that just a technicality? Edit: and keep in mind this is a decision wherein the court is supposed to give great deference to the arbitrator. Seems to me he's given basically no deference on this notice point. Again, i think there's some ok arguments made about Brady's inability to question Pash or look at evidence. But this argument is weak. edit 2: without going back to Goodell's opinion, here's ESPN's summary of it regarding Brady's involvement: "The commissioner said he concluded Brady "knew about, approved of, consented to, and provided inducements and rewards" to ensure balls were deflated." Seems pretty definitive to me that Goodell ruled that Brady violated the rule on football inflation.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:18 AM) Not at all. In labor relations law, "notice" is universally regarded as one of the essential elements required to establish "just cause" for discipline. But he had notice that tampering with equipment was a violation of the rules. And i'm not sure that obstructing an investigation really needs to be spelled out in a CBA to put a player on notice that what he was doing was in violation of the rules. Why should that have to be clarified more than "conduct detrimental to the league?" And again, saying he wasn't on notice that these violations carried a potential 4 game suspension like steriod use is dumb. The NFL shouldn't have to come up with an entire penalty system for violations that have never occurred before - it's uncharted territory for a reason. The Commish, if he's got the authority to penalize a player, also has the right to determine a fair and reasonable punishment. Who cares if he wasn't aware that he could be penalized like steroid violations.

Not providing Brady access to files and not allowing him to question Pash seem to be the two major parts here. That first argument about notice is such nonsense.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:09 AM) No, it could just mean that they need to lay out the possible consequences at the start of an investigation. Wasn't everyone pretty shocked when the 4-game suspension was initially announced? As it is, Goodell just gets to make it up as he goes. But why is that required? What difference does that make? Why does it matter if it's money damages, a game or 10 games. You either cheated or you didn't. Who cares of Goodell has all encompassing powers? That's his right per the CBA. That's what the players agreed to.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:46 AM) I'm guessing that the judge ruled that the NFL didn't actually follow the discipline process, which given how vindictive and arbitrary Goodell has been, isn't exactly a stretch. edit: jenks, maybe the disciplinary process spelled out in the CBA requires notice of the potential penalties? edit2: deadspin has the ruling up I mean the devil is in the details of the opinion, but if that's the case, that would require the CBA to include every conceivable violation a player can make and then the potential penalty to go along with it. How is that realistic? edit: that's literally his opinion: there was no notice to Brady that he could be in trouble for deflating balls or not cooperating in the investigation (citing to the fact that the NFL has never done it before) and therefore he also lacked notice that a violation of same would be equivalent to a 4 game suspension from steroid use. What a horses*** analysis. By this logic, from this point forward any new violation made by a player that is not spelled out in the CBA means the player can't be penalized.

According to ESPN: Why on earth does that matter?

Pretty surprising the judge would overturn that decision. I'm just happy this nonsense is over and we can all move on to something else.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:30 AM) She violated a court order. Right, ultimately that's why the distinction doesn't matter.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:30 AM) Is there a law mandating that she has to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples? I'm sure issuing marriage licenses is in the list of duties under whatever law created her position. But you're right, maybe not with the qualifier of heterosexual couples.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:22 AM) She's in violation of gay couples' constitutional rights. Wouldn't Brown be analogous here? I don't think Mississippi went and passed a bunch of laws mandating desegregation, and yet segregation remained a violation of the Constitution. Obergefell was pretty explicit that the fundamental right of couples of any gender to marry may not be deprived (end of page 4 and beginning of page 5). The parts of state marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples were declared invalid. You don't need a law explicitly allowing the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples when the existing marriage laws are now applicable to them. I don't disagree, but we're talking about her actions. Is she technically in violation of a law/the law/her duties by not issuing those licenses? Is there a law mandating what she, as a clerk, does/doesn't do. I'm sure there's some law defining her role and responsibilities, and perhaps it says something like "uphold the laws of this state and/or the constitution" or whatever, but maybe not. Having a right and having that right infringed is different from saying some individual committed an illegal act.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:04 AM) In what way is that a decent point? I mean it's not a strong point, mind you, i'm just saying it's a very, very technical argument that is at least interesting. Technically there is no law mandating that she has to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. The SC said states can't pass laws that deny homosexuals marriage. Not doing so infringes on homosexuals' rights, and provides them with an opportunity for redress in a court, but she's technically not in violation of any law regarding her duties. Probably a distinction without a difference, but there's a distinction there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 08:37 AM) Mike Huckabee: really dumb or really cynical? That's a decent point, but she's been ordered by a Fed court to issue those licenses. Unless that order is appealed, she's still in contempt of court.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 2, 2015 -> 04:40 PM) Jay had his best season as a bear under Martz until he broke his thumb No matter what the talent deficiency, even you have to admit that Fangio scheming with this unit is going to be better than Tucker scheming with this unit. And when you say "scheming" with Tucker, it deserves quotes Scheming will be better, sure. But they still lack players.

We shall see. 2 years ago it was one of the worst Bears defenses ever. And then last year happened. I get what you guys are saying, that they probably won't be THAT bad, but they won't be appreciably better. They're still a s***ty team. And I think they'll still have their share of terrible, embarrassing losses. edit: and who gives a crap about the 49ers? They had legitimate, young, NFL talent. The Bears have little of that on the defensive side of the ball. Martz was a genius with the Rams too. How'd that work out?

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Sep 2, 2015 -> 11:55 AM) Bears acquired TE Khari Lee from the Texans in exchange for a 2017 sixth-round pick. Lee was an All-American at D-2 Bowie State and signed with the Texans as an undrafted free agent. He didn't impress at his Pro Day, however, displaying subpar athleticism with a 5.05 forty and 9-foot-7 broad jump. Lee caught 5-of-6 preseason targets for 71 scoreless yards. The Bears like him as an inline blocker. Source: John McClain on Twitter He did a sweet Bill O'Brien impression on Hard Knocks though.

QUOTE (shipps @ Sep 2, 2015 -> 11:54 AM) Yeah there is no chance the defense is a bad or worse than last year. They literally had a hard time stopping any drive of the opponent. Even with worse players Fangio will have them cohesive enough to be better than that mess of last year. You guys watched the last preseason game with the starting D unit getting steamrolled right? What have you seen thus far to make you think they'll be any better? Throw in the injuries/suspension too. Other than unbridled hope and optimism that new/different = better, there's no reason to think this year will be any better.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Sep 2, 2015 -> 09:48 AM) It's not fun to watch, but ultimately wouldn't you want to be a 3 or 4 win team over being 6 or 7 win team? Could be the difference in getting one of the better QB. Totally agree. This should be a tank season. They have zero shot at the playoffs, why not play for a better draft position? I have no idea what the crop of QB's looks like, but if it's a short list, make sure you're in the top 3.