Tom Brady suspension nullified

[Sydla]

Hardy's suspension has to do with domestic violence not deflating footballs he was lucky to have his suspension reduced.

Nope.

 

[slick325]

Hardy's suspension has to do with domestic violence not deflating footballs he was lucky to have his suspension reduced.

The crux of all these appeals is the process in which the League determines a players punishment. The ruling today had zero to do with whether Brady was guilty or not...it was about the process. Just as Hardy's appeal has zero to do with guilt or innocence (although he has no conviction on his criminal record for the alleged incident).

As Judge Berman stated..."A player's right to notice is at the heart of the CBA and for that matter, of our criminal and civil justice systems." If the rules at the time state DV allegations or convictions or charges equal a 2 game suspension, then the League is required to adhere to that because it is the "law of the shop" at that time. If the arbitrator gives 10 games or 4 games in that instance, it is not giving adequate notice that the penalty was 10 games or 4 games. "It is the 'law of the shop' to provide professional football players with advance notice of prohibited conduct and potential discipline."

The arbitrator cannot "merely dispense his own brand of industrial justice".

Edit: Judge Berman also stated: NFL arbitral precedent confirms that because Brady did not have notice of the Competitive Integrity Policy, that policy could not serve as the basis for disciplinary actions against him. Judge Jones (in Ray Rice) and U.S. District Judge David S. Doty (in NFLPA v. NFL (Adrian Peterson) ("Adrian Peterson) each held that the increased NFL penalties set forth in a "new" policy for domestic violence (New Personal Conduct Policy Aug. 2014) could not be applied to Rice and Peterson, respectively, because these players (only) had notice of discipline under the 2007 Personal Conduct Policy. 'The Commissioner has acknowledged that he did not have the power to retroactively apply the New Policy'..."

That specifically relates to the Hardy case because it is about notice. Hardy will get 2 games IMHO.

 

[visionary]

I've been working on a project concerning how I think the system should work. It's really not that hard, and pretty similar to what they have in place now. They just need help that they aren't getting from their current legal advisors.

Well, share it, don't keep it a secret

Just imagine if whoever invented the wheel never shared it with anyone

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I do believe that Brady had knowledge of the footballs being deflated. However, notice of discipline; the arbitrator not dispensing his/her own brand of industrial justice; and impartiality of the arbitrator far outweigh the players guilt or innocence.

I don't disagree. However, the NFLPA gave him that arbitrary power. I don't mind them eating their own,,, either

 

[KJJ]

The crux of all these appeals is the process in which the League determines a players punishment. The ruling today had zero to do with whether Brady was guilty or not...it was about the process. Just as Hardy's appeal has zero to do with guilt or innocence (although he has no conviction on his criminal record for the alleged incident).

As Judge Berman stated..."A player's right to notice is at the heart of the CBA and for that matter, of our criminal and civil justice systems." If the rules at the time state DV allegations or convictions or charges equal a 2 game suspension, then the League is required to adhere to that because it is the "law of the shop" at that time. If the arbitrator gives 10 games or 4 games in that instance, it is not giving adequate notice that the penalty was 10 games or 4 games. "It is the 'law of the shop' to provide professional football players with advance notice of prohibited conduct and potential discipline."

The arbitrator cannot "merely dispense his own brand of industrial justice".

Edit: Judge Berman also stated: NFL arbitral precedent confirms that because Brady did not have notice of the Competitive Integrity Policy, that policy could not serve as the basis for disciplinary actions against him. Judge Jones (in Ray Rice) and U.S. District Judge David S. Doty (in NFLPA v. NFL (Adrian Peterson) ("Adrian Peterson) each held that the increased NFL penalties set forth in a "new" policy for domestic violence (New Personal Conduct Policy Aug. 2014) could not be applied to Rice and Peterson, respectively, because these players (only) had notice of discipline under the 2007 Personal Conduct Policy. 'The Commissioner has acknowledged that he did not have the power to retroactively apply the New Policy'..."

That specifically relates to the Hardy case because it is about notice. Hardy will get 2 games IMHO.

Hardy's suspension will stay at 4 games.

 

[slick325]

Hardy's suspension will stay at 4 games.

Ok...guess we will all see how it plays out. But, from my professional perspective, I believe it gets overturned easily. No matter where the appeal is filed, the Judge in that case now has three separate cases to cite to: Judge Jones (Rice); Judge Doty (Peterson) and now Judge Berman regarding the importance of notice in these matters.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It actually is quite minor. So he likes lower deflated balls. Rodgers likes overinflated balls. Teams have tampered with balls in the past.

There are no studies that shown conclusive evidence that the inflation levels of balls has a significant effect on the outcome of a game. It's just a matter of preference or feel, like how one guy might like a shorter spike than another guy. Or one guy likes a slick ball and one likes a scuffed ball.

Plain and simple, this is because it's Brady and the Pats. That's what stirs this drink. If Alex Smith in KC was accused of this, this thing would have blown over 3 months ago.

I don't see how a guy playing with the deflation levels of the balls is somehow now bad for football, like it's going to hurt the product or level of interest or hurt the image of the sport. If all the women beaters, and thieves, and rapists and whatever haven't hurt the NFL in the grand scheme of things, a guy deflating a football certainly won't.

This is like Spygate, another incident that was supposed to be really bad for football. Somehow, the league and sport survived.

I don't dispute the fact that this has gone on in the past. However, you are just plain wrong when you say that it's minor. It's not minor, with regards to how the ball reacts in certain situations. That's a false assumption.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Hardy's suspension will stay at 4 games.

I doubt it.

 

[Sydla]

Hardy's suspension will stay at 4 games.

Why?

 

[Sydla]

Hard


I don't dispute the fact that this has gone on in the past. However, you are just plain wrong when you say that it's minor. It's not minor, with regards to how the ball reacts in certain situations. That's a false assumption.

Where's the proof? I am not the one making an assumption. You are. You apparently are claiming that a ball that is one PSI or whatever below the minimum 12.5 reacts in a much different way. I make no such claims. I just demand proof. So if there is hard evidence out there that Brady or the Pats benefitted immensely from this to the point it affected the outcomes of games, please show me.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Where's the proof? I am not the one making an assumption. You are. You apparently are claiming that a ball that is one PSI or whatever below the minimum 12.5 reacts in a much different way. I make no such claims. I just demand proof. So if there is hard evidence out there that Brady or the Pats benefitted immensely from this to the point it affected the outcomes of games, please show me.

There is no assumption being made here. I have played the game. I know the difference between a flat ball and a hard ball. You can say that 12.5 is not much different then 13 or whatever but you have to have a line. That's the line. In addition, you don't need a study to determine this. You have a rule that is in place. You don't need a study to determine the validity of it because you have already adopted a rule on it. That's the point here after you get past all the window dressing.

If a person burns in a fire, you don't need a study to determine he's burned. You can simply look at it and figure it out. It's not that hard of a concept to get behind.

 

[knightrider94]

Goodell was stupid for destroying that Spygate evidence. He should have kept it and secretly dropped it at just the right time (like now)...

 

[Kevinicus]

Where's the proof? I am not the one making an assumption. You are. You apparently are claiming that a ball that is one PSI or whatever below the minimum 12.5 reacts in a much different way. I make no such claims. I just demand proof. So if there is hard evidence out there that Brady or the Pats benefitted immensely from this to the point it affected the outcomes of games, please show me.

You need a study to know that a ball with less pressure is easier to grip and hold onto? Have you ever played a sport with an inflated ball?

 

[big dog cowboy]

Hardy's suspension will stay at 4 games.

Based on the explaination I just heard on the four letter network (which I only agree with every now and then) I agree with that.

 

[Sydla]

Neither am I. I have played the game. I know the difference between a flat ball and a hard ball. You can say that 12.5 is not much different then 13 or whatever but you have to have a line. That's the line. In addition, you don't need a study to determine this. You have a rule that is in place. You don't need a study to determine the validity of it because you have already adopted a rule on it. That's the point here after you get past all the window dressing.

So in other words, your evidence is anecdotal evidence, which frankly doesn't have a ton of value in this discussion. Again, prove to me that the Pats gained a significant advantage here. Until then, arguing that this is bad for football seems like a massive stretch. You can't make comments like that without offering up evidence as to why.

Not all rules are created equal. Just because you have a rule doesn't then mean that if you break that particular rule it carries a significant effect on the outcome of a game. The NFL also has "rules" on how you can wear your uniform, face paint, etc. So I guess if I see an Under Armour symbol showing on Romo's undershirt, we need to throw the book at him. I mean rules are rules.

The reality is that the NFL rule book is filled with rules that really have little effect on a game and hence, the NFL doesnt' really issue penalties or the like for them. In fact, by the NFL's own actions in prior situations, the NFL has largely viewed equipment violations as being minor at best when they've done nothing but issue warnings and maybe a small fine. So by their own previous actions, the NFL has shown they view these as lesser rules. Only now, did they suddenly try to make this a huge deal.

 

[BringBackThatOleTimeBoys]

Roger Goodell easily could have won today.

You would expect since 2007 he would have codified a fair and consistent system, then notified Brady on potential penalties before his decision.

He didn't and the judge questioned said it was incompetent.

I can't think of any corporation of size that would not demand a lot more due process than Goodell exercised.

Get mad about Brady all you want, but Goodell failed big time.

Again, if Goodell wanted to throw the book at the Patriots, he should have probed them as I suggested earlier on this thread.

 

[Sydla]

You need a study to know that a ball with less pressure is easier to grip and hold onto? Have you ever played a sport with an inflated ball?

I need a study to show you that it affects the outcomes of games. It's more a preference thing than anything. I have played sports and football. I know some guys liked an overinflated ball (Aaron Rodgers for example), I know some liked a slick ball, some liked a scuffed ball.

The fact is if the Pats were gaining a significant advantage here because an underinflated ball leads to a better grip and hence, less fumbles, it would stick out as an anomaly in various analyses. But it hasn't. Now maybe their fumble numbers are helped by a deflated ball. I dont know. But that's the point, you don't either so trying to state they definitely benefitted is a stretch to me.

It couldn't just be that the Pats are good at ball security? Nah. Gotta be cheating.

 

[Sydla]

Based on the explaination I just heard on the four letter network (which I only agree with every now and then) I agree with that.

What was their explanation?

 

[KJJ]

Why?

Because his suspension was reduced from 10 games to 4 games and this was a domestic violence charge that was dismissed only because his accuser refused to cooperate. There was evidence that something happened between Hardy and his accuser which led to him being charged. This wasn't about deflating footballs it was about violence against another human being and after the Ray Rice case rocked the NFL world and the Nation I can't see Hardy getting completely off with no missed games.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So in other words, your evidence is anecdotal evidence, which frankly doesn't have a ton of value in this discussion. Again, prove to me that the Pats gained a significant advantage here. Until then, arguing that this is bad for football seems like a massive stretch. You can't make comments like that without offering up evidence as to why.

Not all rules are created equal. Just because you have a rule doesn't then mean that if you break that particular rule it carries a significant effect on the outcome of a game. The NFL also has "rules" on how you can wear your uniform, face paint, etc. So I guess if I see an Under Armour symbol showing on Romo's undershirt, we need to throw the book at him. I mean rules are rules.

The reality is that the NFL rule book is filled with rules that really have little effect on a game and hence, the NFL doesnt' really issue penalties or the like for them. In fact, by the NFL's own actions in prior situations, the NFL has largely viewed equipment violations as being minor at best when they've done nothing but issue warnings and maybe a small fine. So by their own previous actions, the NFL has shown they view these as lesser rules. Only now, did they suddenly try to make this a huge deal.

No. You are 100% wrong. All the evidence that is required is the knowledge that a rule exists. Based on that, the fact that a baseline is set is all that is relevant. You can dance around that all you want. In the end, the rule is there and if you are operating outside the stated rule, then you in effect, breaking the rules or cheating.

You are wrong.