Tom Brady suspension nullified

[Kevinicus]

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.

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

A ball that is easier to hold is less likely to be fumbled. There is no doubt of that. It doesn't matter if it does actually prevent a fumble or not. There is no way to know what would or would not have happened if a ball was properly inflated instead. If it can potentially prevent just one fumble in a season, it is HUGE, not minor.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

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.

None of that is material. A ruling would be based on procedure and past history in cases such as this. All the rest of what you said is irrelevant.

 

[KJJ]

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.

I'm certainly no expert but based on this being about domestic violence I just can't see Hardy getting completely off with no missed games. I doubt that would set well with a lot of people across the country especially with all the TV campaigns that got started after the Ray Rice incident. Deflating footballs is like child's play compared to domestic violence. For Hardy to be charged there had to be some evidence against him and the case was dismissed only because his accuser refused to cooperate.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

A ball that is easier to hold is less likely to be fumbled. There is no doubt of that. It doesn't matter if it does actually prevent a fumble or not. There is no way to know what would or would not have happened if a ball was properly inflated instead. If it can potentially prevent just one fumble in a season, it is HUGE, not minor.

No, you need a study. You need that because all rules are not equal. For that reason and because nobody can seem to remember where the study on what rules were important and what rules are not, was placed.

 

[Sydla]

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.

So all rules are created equal? The very fact that the NFL themselves have a wide range of punishments for all the rules they have is the clear indictor that not all rules are created equal.

The Panthers, who were heating balls on the sidelines last November? Rules violation. Rule breakers. I missed their massive fine and taken draft picks. I mean all rules are created equal and as such, you break one, you should be punished harshly. It's not good for the game if you let flagrant violators like that off with just a warning, right?

 

[Sydla]

A ball that is easier to hold is less likely to be fumbled. There is no doubt of that. It doesn't matter if it does actually prevent a fumble or not. There is no way to know what would or would not have happened if a ball was properly inflated instead. If it can potentially prevent just one fumble in a season, it is HUGE, not minor.

Umm, that's exactly the point. In order to make such a charge, you need to have proof that it actually does affect fumble numbers.

If you can't then you are just flat out guessing.

 

[KJJ]

None of that is material. A ruling would be based on procedure and past history in cases such as this. All the rest of what you said is irrelevant.

How many players that were charged with domestic abuse had league suspensions completely wiped away? A new personal conduct policy by the NFL was adopted after the Ray Rice incident so can't see how past history is going to change anything.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So all rules are created equal? The very fact that the NFL themselves have a wide range of punishments for all the rules they have is the clear indictor that not all rules are created equal.

The Panthers, who were heating balls on the sidelines last November? RuThe les violation. Rule breakers. I missed their massive fine and taken draft picks. I mean all rules are created equal and as such, you break one, you should be punished harshly. It's not good for the game if you let flagrant violators like that off with just a warning, right?

I don't know. Where is the book that tells you which rules are to be followed and which rules are not? Once you can locate that, then we can actually find the answer to your question.

The rules are all equal. It is not a shade of gray issue. You are either within the rule of the law or you are outside of it. The punishments vary but that is a different issue. You are now talking about penalties. That's a different discussion all together. All you are doing now is muddying the water.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

How many players that were charged with domestic abuse had league suspensions completely wiped away? A new personal conduct policy by the NFL was adopted after the Ray Rice incident so can't see how past history is going to change anything.

Why are you asking me this question?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Umm, that's exactly the point. In order to make such a charge, you need to have proof that it actually does affect fumble numbers.

If you can't then you are just flat out guessing.

No, you don't. You don't because there is a rule in place that defines what a ball can be inflated or deflated to. You can have 247 studies on it but until the rule is changed, it doesn't matter. It's a way to try and get around the point and that's all it is.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

The rules are all equal. It is not a shade of gray issue. You are either within the rule of the law or you are outside of it. The punishments vary but that is a different issue. You are now talking about penalties. That's a different discussion all together. All you are doing now is muddying the water.

I don't think anyone is arguing that players should be able to deflate footballs, it is the varying degree of punishments that is the core issue.

 

[Sydla]

How many players that were charged with domestic abuse had league suspensions completely wiped away? A new personal conduct policy by the NFL was adopted after the Ray Rice incident so can't see how past history is going to change anything.

I think you are missing the point. No one is arguing what you are arguing. Hardy's case doesn't hinge on domestic violence versus deflated balls, etc.

It hinges on the fact that the NFL has clear procedures in place that they may have violated. That they have already been told by a federal judge that they basically can't retroactively apply new punishments for old crimes. The court is impartial. They don't care nor will they care, what the actual crime is that Hardy is accused of. They will only care about whether the NFL followed the procedures put in place. And as we saw in the Peterson case, which involved what some thought is a heinous crime of beating a child, the judge solely ruled on whether or not the league properly followed the procedures in place.

 

[KJJ]

Why are you asking me this question?

Because you said a ruling would be based on procedure and "past history" in cases such as this. So I'm just asking if you know of any players who were suspended after being charged with domestic violence then had their suspensions completely overturned? I can't think of any and with a new player conduct policy in place with more emphasis being made on domestic violence I can't see how anything that's happened in the past concerning domestic violence will apply today under the new scrutiny that's being placed on domestic violence.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think anyone is arguing that players should be able to deflate footballs, it is the varying degree of punishments that is the core issue.

Actually, that is exactly what is being discussed. It is also exactly what I am pointing out. The rule and the question of Brady and the Pats breaking them is not a matter of debate. They did that. The question of what the penalty was is a different discussion all together but if you want to discuss that issue, then say that. Don't say that you need a study to determine if air pressure factors into fumbles etc. That's a question of the rule, not the penalty.

 

[Sydla]

I don't know. Where is the book that tells you which rules are to be followed and which rules are not? Once you can locate that, then we can actually find the answer to your question.

The rules are all equal. It is not a shade of gray issue. You are either within the rule of the law or you are outside of it. The punishments vary but that is a different issue. You are now talking about penalties. That's a different discussion all together. All you are doing now is muddying the water.

Ahhh, now I see it. I think we are debating two separate things here.

My point all along has been what Brady did was a minor infraction. I am not arguing that he didn't break a rule. You are right, you break a rule, you break a rule. But that's not my real point. I am arguing your claim that this particular thing is bad for football. He broke a minor rule that really isn't going hurt the game of football like you claimed........... like how Vikings heating balls didn't or won't hurt the game or is bad for the game. Or if a guy wear's the wrong color spats or socks is technically breaking a rule but in the grand scheme of things. Some rules are minor rules that if broken are just farts in the wind........... this is one of those rules and I don't see how this is suddenly really bad for the sport.

My apologies if you misunderstood what I was saying.

 

[khiladi]

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.

So guilty Brady gets no games because Goodell suspended him way too many games? And if there was no established precedent, (which person in the NFL ever ordered ball boys to deflate balls and destroy a cell phone when asked) how could one even argue that Goodell had to punish Brady some 'specific' standard that wouldn't even have existed? How is Minnesota and Atlanta, for example, any way like this incident?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Because you said a ruling would be based on procedure and "past history" in cases such as this. So I'm just asking if you know of any players who were suspended after being charged with domestic violence then had their suspensions completely overturned? I can't think of any and with a new player conduct policy in place with more emphasis being made on domestic violence I can't see how anything that's happened in the past concerning domestic violence will apply today under the new scrutiny that's being placed on domestic violence.

Which it will be. In the case of Hardy, they will look at what the past history dictated in cases such as this and they will rule accordingly. In past cases, the rule was 2 games. You are implying that I said no games, which I never said. You inferred that on your own. To add to this, the Court will take into consideration what has already transpired in this case. I don't think 4 games will stand up but I guess we will see.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Actually, that is exactly what is being discussed. It is also exactly what I am pointing out. The rule and the question of Brady and the Pats breaking them is not a matter of debate. They did that. The question of what the penalty was is a different discussion all together but if you want to discuss that issue, then say that. Don't say that you need a study to determine if air pressure factors into fumbles etc. That's a question of the rule, not the penalty.

well on that point, you are correct, it's definitely a rule, definitely was broke and more than likely Brady played a part in it.

 

[Sydla]

Because you said a ruling would be based on procedure and "past history" in cases such as this. So I'm just asking if you know of any players who were suspended after being charged with domestic violence then had their suspensions completely overturned? I can't think of any and with a new player conduct policy in place with more emphasis being made on domestic violence I can't see how anything that's happened in the past concerning domestic violence will apply today under the new scrutiny that's being placed on domestic violence.

But that's the crux and has been shown to not be valid by a federal judge.

That the new policy can't be retroactively applied to crimes that happened under the old policy.

 

[KJJ]

I think you are missing the point. No one is arguing what you are arguing. Hardy's case doesn't hinge on domestic violence versus deflated balls, etc.

It hinges on the fact that the NFL has clear procedures in place that they may have violated. That they have already been told by a federal judge that they basically can't retroactively apply new punishments for old crimes. The court is impartial. They don't care nor will they care, what the actual crime is that Hardy is accused of. They will only care about whether the NFL followed the procedures put in place. And as we saw in the Peterson case, which involved what some thought is a heinous crime of beating a child, the judge solely ruled on whether or not the league properly followed the procedures in place.

There's always been a punishment for crimes by the NFL that involved suspensions. Hardy's original 10 game suspension wasn't fair because his incident happened before the new player conduct policy was announced which led to a big reduction in his suspension. I just can't see his 4 game suspension being overturned.