Did I use the wrong term?WayBackVazquez said:
The point I was trying to make was using a ridiculous scenario (your boss demands to look in your fridge) as a comparison is not a winning argument.
Must be a different Latin phrase for that.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
The point I was trying to make was using a ridiculous scenario (your boss demands to look in your fridge) as a comparison is not a winning argument.
Must be a different Latin phrase for that.
Greg Aiello at the League office denying there has been any decision to suspend or otherwise yet. No link to source sorry, I'm out and about, Adam Jones has it on 98.5 right now.
I can agree with that. Like I said, likely something in between the two poles.dcmissle said:
Oh I think starting the game on time is a HUGE concern in this case.bosox188 said:
What the refs should have done the second they found McNally had acted in an unexpected way was to immediately grab the bag of back-up balls and just use those, leaving all testing, etc to post-game. They fucked that up.
86spike said:
Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy.
In any case, the point is that there is obviously some limit to what the NFL can request of players, and personal cell information isn't necessarily within that limit. The fact that we're not talking about a criminal trial does work both ways here.
That issue is dealt with in contract drafting ever damn day.njnesportsfan said:
The way you address it is to use basic language like "players shall not be required to submit information held on any privately-owned personal communication device which shall include, but not be limited to, cellular phones, pagers, computers, or any other device used for communication via text message, voice, email or other means."
You can also add a "or any other device invented during the term of this agreement" to cover everything.
Contract lawyers have that shit covered.
It's not a ridiculous scenario, it's quite comparable. Feel free to conduct your investigation, and I will happily discuss the matter with you, and I will of course submit all material owned, or controlled by you, but I will not permit you to invade my privacy. And I feel pretty good about the fact that requiring me to turn over my personal cell phone, or permit you to search my car, or house, or refrigerator is an invasion of my privacy. And if you discipline me for declining to permit such intrusion, I will engage an employment attorney.
At-will employment is very favorable to employers, but it has its limits.
(Admittedly, I live in California, which has very strong (and Constitutional) privacy protections.)
At-will employment is very favorable to employers, but it has its limits.
(Admittedly, I live in California, which has very strong (and Constitutional) privacy protections.)
For those saying McNally took the balls out of the officials room without permission, I tend to think he never asked for permission, this was the way he did things in the past and the officials had no problem with it until they needed to cover their own asses.
Why would McNally if he was going to illegally deflate footballs do something right away ion the process to set off alarm bells? You would think he would have simply said I am going to take the balls to the field now, okay and then stop at the washroom. The whole thing doesn't make sense to me.
Why would McNally if he was going to illegally deflate footballs do something right away ion the process to set off alarm bells? You would think he would have simply said I am going to take the balls to the field now, okay and then stop at the washroom. The whole thing doesn't make sense to me.
But NFL spokesman Greg Aiello spokesman said in an email to Boston.com Saturday that “no decisions have been made.”
“It is Gary Myers’ prediction,” Aiello wrote. “The headline is misleading.”
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/09/nfl-challenges-report-brady-suspension/XewHQZZBJM9c4G2jSwEStJ/story.html
Take that FWIW but it is a statement from an NFL spokesperson. I personally believe they still have their finger in the wind.
“It is Gary Myers’ prediction,” Aiello wrote. “The headline is misleading.”
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/09/nfl-challenges-report-brady-suspension/XewHQZZBJM9c4G2jSwEStJ/story.html
Take that FWIW but it is a statement from an NFL spokesperson. I personally believe they still have their finger in the wind.
The NFL punishment, in terms of public announcement, was not likely to be issued for about a week after the report came out for 2 reasons:
1) NFL wants to portray this all as a thoughtful, deliberative process, so rumination on the Wells findings is proper.
2) Roger wants to stick his finger in the air to judge sentiment.
1) NFL wants to portray this all as a thoughtful, deliberative process, so rumination on the Wells findings is proper.
2) Roger wants to stick his finger in the air to judge sentiment.
If Goodell has any sense the most he'll do is fine Brady $25K for each ball found to be tampered with, because that would be the only way to put an end to the story before next season starts. Suspend Brady and the story continues throughout next season.
It's the story of opening night, instead of opening the season. ("The SB Champions begin their defense without the man who brought them the trophy.")
It's the story whenever Brady comes back--let's say the Cowboys or Colts game--instead of that marquee matchup. ("How will Brady handle the layoff from his suspension?").
It will be the story once the playoffs begin, should the suspension cost the Pats wins that cost them playoff seeding. ("The Pats begin on the road because they lost the tiebreaker to the Steelers in a game they were forced to play with their backup because of Brady's suspension...")
If Goodell has half a brain about what is best for his league going forward, he'll dismiss this BS for what it is and give the sort of punishment that will ensure this matter doesn't bleed into next season.
Sport radio idiots and other media trolls will roast him for a few days, but all their bleating will be forgotten long before the season starts next September. That is unless he gives them a reason to keep this story alive come next September.
It's the story of opening night, instead of opening the season. ("The SB Champions begin their defense without the man who brought them the trophy.")
It's the story whenever Brady comes back--let's say the Cowboys or Colts game--instead of that marquee matchup. ("How will Brady handle the layoff from his suspension?").
It will be the story once the playoffs begin, should the suspension cost the Pats wins that cost them playoff seeding. ("The Pats begin on the road because they lost the tiebreaker to the Steelers in a game they were forced to play with their backup because of Brady's suspension...")
If Goodell has half a brain about what is best for his league going forward, he'll dismiss this BS for what it is and give the sort of punishment that will ensure this matter doesn't bleed into next season.
Sport radio idiots and other media trolls will roast him for a few days, but all their bleating will be forgotten long before the season starts next September. That is unless he gives them a reason to keep this story alive come next September.
Well, in a sense, the answer is simple: tell the truth. If the truth is that this is a ginned-up witch hunt by a bunch of sore losers who can't admit just how owned they are by Brady, then he should tell them exactly that.
The report has a whole section exploring whether or not McNally's action was normal and consensus among everyone but the two security guards paid by the Pats was that it was not normal or protocol.scotian1 said:
This part here is perhaps the most frustrating and inconsistent part of the whole report and investigation. Despite the questionable appendices, lack of objectivity, or thorough look at the overall process, the fact that the league keeps mentioning the "integrity of the game" yet would allow the first half of the AFC Championship Game to be played with footballs that may have been tampered with does not seem to fit. And the fact that the Colts would actually encourage this leads me to believe that even they did not think it would really impact the game (or they just decided that trying to frame the Patriots was more important than actually getting to the Super Bowl themselves).86spike said:
Grimace-HS said:
The Colts may have seen this avenue as their only realistic way to get to the SB. They weren't going to beat the Patriots and they knew it.
In any event, Goodell and the rest of the world have found a common enemy and thy name is New England. Expect Goodell to lower the hammer hard. If TB's suspension is overturned on appeal, Goodell is a hero; a martyr of sorts. This is the best thing that's happened to him in two years. No one is talking about Rice, Hardy, and CTE.
It would take a strong leader to be able to dismiss the report's headline accusation. Goodell's has shown neither the wisdom ability nor intelligence to recognize nuance, and I suspect no one expects him to do the correct thing, which should be to fine and dock the Patriots draft pick(s) but leave Brady free of a suspension.
nolasoxfan said:
Rhoden's column yesterday was a travesty. He stirs the pot in general and he always injects race into his columns but with Brady he couldn't do that, so he just babbled incessantly.
His Brady column was really bad and so overwrought. It was all reaction, no facts.
The overreaction to this whole thing is really something. I have never gotten so many "EFF YOU BRADY and the CHEATRIOTS ONLY CHEAT TO WIN" than I have in the past 3 days.
Tom Brady is my all time favorite athlete. Watching this happen really sucks. Watching him get tarnished in such a fashion sucks.
JokersWildJIMED said:
It might happen yet. As dcmissile noted a few days back, Diana Moon Glampers can tip-toe around Brady and really smash the team. Something like, "The evidence regarding Brady's involvement is inconclusive at best, and after meeting with Tom I am confident he knew nothing." Then he can lay on heavy fines and withdraw draft picks from the team, blaming the team somewhere on the continuum from (low end) sloppy procedures and poor oversight to (high end) fostering a "culture of cheating" where employees would believe deflating footballs after referee's inspection is acceptable practice. Result is there's nothing for Brady to appeal, though he still got slimed by the whole affair. The team has no recourse to appeal. Roger looks tough, and his decision is not subject to being overturned.
If the facts were unequivocally good for Brady, I'm sure he'd do this. Therefore, I'm assuming the facts aren't as favorable as you suggest.wiffleballhero said:
My guess is Brady pressed the staff to inflate the balls as little as possible, and might have complained about balls at the low end of the legal range, but never flat-out told anyone to underinflate balls or doctor balls after they were inspected by game officials. That's not a rules violation, but it doesn't look good, and having made at least one misstatement to investigators, Brady can't afford to say things that don't look good. Hence, the strategy of cutting a low profile and not adding fuel to the fire.
@gehrig38: Love my Steelers through and through but this is a joke. NFL needs a new commish. http://t.co/EgAYrzpcY1
What misstatement? The claim he didn't know McNally? Agree it looks bad, but I'd be interested to know what Yee/Brady's response to that is. If it was, "I've never heard of that guy"/"Nope, no idea" and nothing else, I agree it looks bad. But if it's, "Who? Jimmy? Jimmy who? Oh right, yeah, Jimmy" then that's a little different.
Since nobody so far has been able to answer the question "what NFL rule does being 'generally aware' violate", this morning I decided to pose the question on Twitter to a bunch of sports media types that I follow, both local and national. Mostly crickets so far (shocking!). The only person to engage so far is John Kincade (@JohnKincade) of CBS Sports Radio. He and some other random dude were in the middle of back-slapping each other about what cheaters the Pats were. So I asked them both The Question. Random Dude gets mad and blocks me almost right away. Kincade goes back and forth with me for a while, but steadfastly refuses or is unable to answer The Question. Eventually he just gets pissed and basically tells me to pound sand. I thought the exchange was pretty funny, here's the transcript in case anyone's interested:
https://storify.com/markfvita/my-conversation-w-john-kincade
edit: fixed link
https://storify.com/markfvita/my-conversation-w-john-kincade
edit: fixed link
That's why I used the word misstatement, and not the word lie.Van Everyman said:
Speaking of which, if there's some way Brady can spin his words as a misunderstanding, an accidental misstatement, or a slip of memory, I assume he or (more likely) his representatives have reached out to the Commissioner's office to correct the record. That would be a perfectly reasonable reaction to the publication of the report, and Brady's representatives would be remiss not to do so, unless his prior statement was so unequivocal that attempting to correct it now would be tantamount to admitting he lied before.
Edit: The catch is that Brady's representatives likely don't have access to his prior statement; they would have to rely on Brady's recollection of what he said. There's a risk of stepping in it if Brady recalls saying something ambiguous, when in fact he said unequivocally that he didn't know McNally (even if that was an innocent mistake -- which it likely would be if Brady doesn't recall lying about that).
Gorton Fisherman said:
You could have googled this ...
https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/personal-conduct-policy.pdf
here are some of Yee's comments on the cell phoneStitch01 said:
http://nep.247sports.com/Bolt/Tom-Bradys-agent-explains-decision-to-withhold-his-phone-37174444
Gorton Fisherman said:
Its literally the first paragraph. I dont agree with it but the avoid conduct detrimental statement can be applied in a ton of different ways to include punishment for someone who knew wrong doing was going on but didnt report it. They dont need a specific rule to state that being generally aware is punishable when the conduct detrimental clause provides umbrella coverage
wibi said:
So just to be perfectly clear, we're saying that any player who has "general awareness" of a minor* rules infraction and doesn't report it is guilty of "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League". Is that what we're saying?
(*Yes I'm classifying "intentional ball tampering" as a "minor" infraction, based on the NFL's own discipline guideline for this infraction of a minimum $25K fine.)
scotian1 said:
Probably because the number of times in the history of the game prior to that night that anybody ever cared about the issue was zero.
The fact that the wells report says that Brady claimed to "not know McNally's name" as opposed to "not know McNally" is one of the things that gets me about the tone. Yet they use that "he claimed not to know McNally" as one of the fundamental points for its generally aware conclusion.Van Everyman said:
Later on the report throws in a "I don't know who Jim McNally is" quote from Brady (paraphrased from memory) but then earlier and later in the report they don't simply say TB claimed to not know McNally period. They say "McNally's name". Considering the guy is a part time guy who works on game days only I'm not surprised Brady might not know everybody's surname or everybody who reports to the other guy. Particularly if the other guy refers to McNally in his phone's contacts as "Bird" maybe TB only knew him as Jimmy or Bird etc.
But then again the Brady camp hasn't try to establish this point but it's interesting wells writes "McNally's name" when they could have left out the last word. Interesting nuance at the least
Gorton Fisherman said:
What I'm saying is that the NFL wanted to hammer someone for that they have language in place to do so. I'm making no judgement about if they are guilty or not nor am I making any guesses as to what the NFLPA would do in response.
Did the NFL have a specific rule about locker room bullying or hazing when the Incognito thing went down?
If your sense of things is true I cannot imagine why he needs to keep a low profile. There is nothing in these hypotheticals that violates the rules or even goes beyond his prerogative as the QB.maufman said:
How hard would it be to say, "I don't have verbatim recall of every single conversation I have had, especially as those conversations relate to the meaningless details of rules nobody cared about and that were never enforced."
How hard would it also be for him to say, "hey, also, there are 900 people who work on home game days, I don't know his fucking name beyond calling him 'Mcballzie.'"
Jesus, Manny Ramirez went years playing on the same team with guys and seemingly never moved past knowing them by their nickname.
In footnote 11 the report states that the league guideline prohibits the use of the prepared game balls during midweek practices.A couple of pages later the report goes on to describe in detail the procedures of the Colts p particularly for exposing the balls to sweat and sunlight to get them the way they like them. No such detail is provided by the Pats as far as practice use is concerned although they do state that they use the balls in practice as well.
Another thing I found odd was the fact that Exponent only used Colts balls in their simulations.Wouldn't the simulations have had more value as evidence if they were done with the Pats footballs?
Another thing I found odd was the fact that Exponent only used Colts balls in their simulations.Wouldn't the simulations have had more value as evidence if they were done with the Pats footballs?
Among the countless things in all of this that make my eyes want to bleed is the fact that this massive cheating plan depends upon imagining that Brady (at a minimum) was so Machiavellian in his scheming that he (unlike every other person on the planet) saw the ball pressure rule as not only worth circumventing but worth doing so in this large, orchestrated fashion. Until Kravitz's tweeting nobody (as the Rodgers, Carolina, Minn. examples make clear) ever gave a damn about this. So why would Brady engage in such cloak and dagger work? Isn't it more likely that this is on par with exactly the kind of equipment violations that every single team has every game as players modify their uniforms and pads outside of the requirements.
I think it is 'more probable than not' that Brady is a pain in the ass to work with.
I think it is 'more probable than not' that he likes balls that are softer than most QB, maybe even softer than 12.5!
I think it is 'more probable than not' that McNally makes some alterations to the balls.
But it strikes me as beyond paranoid to imagine that McNally does this because he is the foot soldier on the front lines of Brady and Belichick's war against fair play.
My guess is that if he acted he acted alone so big shot Brady was not a pain in his ass and he probably never thought twice about it because it does not matter to anyone except the pretty boy QB who acts like a lunatic if his balls are not soft enough.
Why does there have to be a conspiracy for an employee like McNally to develop a quick, meaningless and easy way to get Brady off his ass every week? This is actually what employees do all the time in virtually all jobs. And in fact, the classic move of the underling employee is to not tell the ass-pain boss how the sausage is put together. The less they know the better. This is so not because there is a masterplot to create plausible deniability for the big shot, but because the employee does not need or want something else for the boss to get his underoos in a bunch about.
Furthermore, if the Wells Report is to be believed, Brady was obviously conscious of not wanting the refs to make the balls too hard since he included the copy of the rule with his balls each week. It would take a rather brash mother fucker to both put the rule into the face of the refs and then direct the rule to be broken.
A wiser conspiracy would have been to simply have McNally ask the refs to leave them as soft as they can and then soften them up more, pretending to be ignorant of the rule.
In any case, how is it not suspicious that the pregame numbers are all exactly 12.5 and 13 but at the half they are now getting to the 1/100th PSI? I call bull shit on all of that.
I still think the refs. fucked up and did not do exact enough measuring in the first place but when it became a real issue at the half they had already screwed up the situation irreparably because there was not an actual baseline from the start of the game. That was all rounded up and down for their convenience.
I think McNally was taking a piss.
It is true though that Brady has engaged in conduct detrimental to the league: he has been better than everyone else and they have hurt feelings. Boo hoo.
I think it is 'more probable than not' that Brady is a pain in the ass to work with.
I think it is 'more probable than not' that he likes balls that are softer than most QB, maybe even softer than 12.5!
I think it is 'more probable than not' that McNally makes some alterations to the balls.
But it strikes me as beyond paranoid to imagine that McNally does this because he is the foot soldier on the front lines of Brady and Belichick's war against fair play.
My guess is that if he acted he acted alone so big shot Brady was not a pain in his ass and he probably never thought twice about it because it does not matter to anyone except the pretty boy QB who acts like a lunatic if his balls are not soft enough.
Why does there have to be a conspiracy for an employee like McNally to develop a quick, meaningless and easy way to get Brady off his ass every week? This is actually what employees do all the time in virtually all jobs. And in fact, the classic move of the underling employee is to not tell the ass-pain boss how the sausage is put together. The less they know the better. This is so not because there is a masterplot to create plausible deniability for the big shot, but because the employee does not need or want something else for the boss to get his underoos in a bunch about.
Furthermore, if the Wells Report is to be believed, Brady was obviously conscious of not wanting the refs to make the balls too hard since he included the copy of the rule with his balls each week. It would take a rather brash mother fucker to both put the rule into the face of the refs and then direct the rule to be broken.
A wiser conspiracy would have been to simply have McNally ask the refs to leave them as soft as they can and then soften them up more, pretending to be ignorant of the rule.
In any case, how is it not suspicious that the pregame numbers are all exactly 12.5 and 13 but at the half they are now getting to the 1/100th PSI? I call bull shit on all of that.
I still think the refs. fucked up and did not do exact enough measuring in the first place but when it became a real issue at the half they had already screwed up the situation irreparably because there was not an actual baseline from the start of the game. That was all rounded up and down for their convenience.
I think McNally was taking a piss.
It is true though that Brady has engaged in conduct detrimental to the league: he has been better than everyone else and they have hurt feelings. Boo hoo.
I think it is more probable than not that Roger Goodell is at least generally aware that this whole thing is bullshit. Not that that will stop him from screwing Brady and the Pats over.
Ed Hillel said:
The team suspended him before the NFL could and the CBA has a clause where the NFL and a team cannot both punish a player for the same act or conduct (thats what the NFLPA was planning to argue if the NFL suspended him after the team did.)
Yeah, this knock on Brady was always sketchy to me, and then watching an interview with Tedy Bruschi nailed it for me...Van Everyman said:
Tedy Bruschi: "Jim McNally? Who's that?"
[someone shows him a pictue of Jim]
TB: Oh, that's 'Bird' "
Wells turned giving autographs to fellow employees into a sin, when even those not familiar with the culture of football easily surmised that was a common practice. I don't believe he outright lied here...we need contexf.
If this report is supposed to be the product of a thoughtful investigation,why does it include so many logical and factual inconsistencies.Did anyone proofread this before it was released.
This is sloppy work at best and bullshit advocacy at worst.
This is sloppy work at best and bullshit advocacy at worst.
It's pretty clear that Wells couldn't prove that Brady did anything wrong, except perhaps for the veracity of his statements in the course of the investigation.wiffleballhero said: