Set bag on floor, bend over and open it, deflate balls while they are still in the bag for 3 seconds each, grab bag's drawstring and head out the door
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
I agree that would be the violation under the rules. So let's assume there was a violation. McNally sneaks into the bathroom and takes about .5 PSI out of most of the footballs. Why does that action result in this punishment?uncannymanny said:
It only does because this is the perfect shitstorm. Sneaking into the bathroom rather than just deflating in the locker room, out of context text messages referring to "deflator" and "going to ESPN," the Patriots being involved.
Instead, let's assume a different set of facts. A video camera captures the referees inspecting the footballs in the locker room prior to the Green Bay/Dallas playoff game. After the refs step out, the ball attendant quickly takes the pump and adds .5 PSI to each ball because Rodgers likes his footballs on the firm side. The effect on the game is no different than what potentially happened with the Patriots. What do you think the penalty would have been?
I'm guessing somewhere between the $20,000 fine against the Chargers for doctoring balls and the 5th-round draft pick/$350,000 fine against the Falcons for trying to drown out the opposing quarterback's signals.
smokin joe wood said:
Glad he included this bit regarding the NFL's entirely erroneous official letter to the Pats:
86spike said:
The games were 8 days apart so I'm guessing they didn't try to look that day then?
Given how seriously the NFL has taken this issue I would really like to see them log publicly every football PSI prior to the game, at halftime, and after the game for a full season.
If McNally secretly deflated the balls and if they were all at least 12.5 psi right after deflation (a big if, I know), I'd contend he did nothing wrong. The balls were legal when they left his hands. It's like a 21 year old using a fake ID that says he's 25 when buying beer. Is there a rule that you can't secretly do something legal to the ball after the refs approve them?
It's likely a violation, which is uncannymanny's point. The rule is poorly written. The footballs are under the ref's supervision until turned over to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game. It doesn't say that the footballs aren't to be altered, even if within compliance of the rules otherwise, once turned over to ball attendant. However, it's likely implied.Ferm Sheller said:
That's not my overall argument on this issue. If McNally did take air out of the footballs in the bathroom after they were already inspected, he violated the rule. The punishment, though, should have been minor as the rules explicitly state and as precedent demonstrated.
natpastime162 said:
Don't recall an interview, but King has written about the Commish still wanting more from BB..
Maybe I deflate one twice, maybe one doesn't get deflated at all. So be it. Brady will just chuck it aside if he doesn't like it.DrewDawg said:
Bongorific said:
McNally fucking with the balls is a violation, but we only care if it was something he did on specific direction from Brady. If not, I don't care. Fire the guy, whatever. And hell, to me it really only matters if that direction from Brady was SPECIFICALLY telling him to lower them below 12.5.
We've spent a lot of time and posts wondering if and how he did it. To me, the only thing that matters is if Brady was directing it AND they can prove it.
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-02-02/roger-goodell-feels-deceived-by-patriots-belichickHarry Hooper said:
It's total nonsense; there was no actual obligation on Belichick's part to say any more than what he said. But Goodell had to raise the issue again 3 years after the fact, long after the story was essentially dead and buried. Gives some insight into how the small mind of Goodell really operates. Again, it's no way to run an organization.
There will be no "rallying the owners", not on this. People need to stop viewing owners' relationship with their teams as an exclusively businesslike one. Many of these guys made their money elsewhere, and some could have even more lucrative investments than an NFL franchise. Even those who owe their entire fortune to the NFL (Irsay springs to mind) probably have a relationship with their franchise that's a lot more personal than simple business ownership. In other words, these guys are fans, and they're going to behave that way.
I'll quote this previous response because it's an absolute perfect analogy IMO:Bongorific said:
And you're 100% right about this:kartvelo said:
I'm not picking on you in particular. I'll make my position clearer, and as a start I'll say that I think something went on that wasn't by the book. I'll reiterate that that is what *I* think based in the report. As an addendum i don't believe it in any way affected the games, but that's irrelevant anyway.
Everyone in this entire situation was stupid. All of them. The Pats, Goodell, Wells, Exponent, the media; the whole lot of them blew this in spectacular fashion. As has been said, you couldn't write this as fiction and have anyone believe almost any part of it. Colossally asinine.
Responsibility is on the team for either doing it intentionally or letting low level goons think it was not a big deal to violate ANY rules, no matter how minuscule. Goodell for being an anus of a human being. Wells for not knowing better than to write the inferential steaming pile of crap he published and then stupendously doubling down in the PC. The media for going ballistic over this minor infraction after burying years of violent and intoxicated behavior by players, coaches, owners and execs. It's just a fucking clown show from top to bottom. Kraft is maybe the only genuine and clean party in the whole ordeal and I feel terrible for him.
Well that's kind of a silly exercise, but let's. Can we pretend Aaron Hernandez didn't murder anyone and be indignant about his imprisonment next?
In this hypothetical did GB cause a league/Goodell-embarrassing shitstorm because of Spygate? Did their coach thumb his nose at the media for 10 years? Did their coach fuck with the league office for that same amount of time over the injury report? Did they put their figurative balls on the table by neener-neenering the Ravens the prior week after running fully legal but dubiously competitive plays? Should I continue?
Look, I LOVE this franchise and was a season ticket holder with my dad until I left the area (starting when they still stunk -- Tony Eason stunk). Other than Spygate I think all of the above are fucking AWESOME. Truly wonderful. But the fact is when you constantly act like a dick to everyone you work with, you put yourself in a tenuous position if you're not completely above board. The chickens came home to roost for the franchise, rightly or wrongly. The punishment was, from the moment it was announced, clearly not solely about this incident, although it was still shocking and it is definitely stupid.
What's really tiring though is the constant justification:
- the mega posts every .6 pages outlining why the science is stupid (it is but it's quite obviously the least important part of why the discipline was handed down)
- painting billionaire Robert Kraft, most intelligent coach of all time and millionaire Bill Belichick and millionaire supermodel husband Tom Brady as "aw shucks" yokels
- finger pointing "they did it too!!1!"
- "but it didn't affect the score! 2nd half!!1!"
- McNally is threatening to go to ESPN to tell them Tom Brady is mean to him!
And on and on. It's lame behavior, we would destroy the Jets/Broncos/Ravens/Giants fans for doing this. We all know exactly why the fuck the punishment was what it was. Is it fair? Certainly not and I hope to hell the NFL gets dragged through the gauntlet and embarrassed, especially Goodell.
But I'm watching tons of people on this board who I've respected for like a decade and are way smarter than me twist themselves into pretzels making foolish, roundabout arguments to points that aren't the crux of the matter. It's embarrassing and this place is better than that.
Now can we just railroad RG somehow?!
:facepalm:Ferm Sheller said:
And it's actually exactly like that analogy. The 25 year old probably gets off with having his beer taken away if caught, but the rules say he can go to jail and pay a fine. Oh, and this incident happened in Deliverance and the kid was from Manhattan and he gets raped in jail by the arresting officer.
Imho the dan wetzel article is the definitive account of what happened and not a single extra word needs to be written about that matter ever.
Just start a thread with it and keep it on top of the subforum for years to come.
Just start a thread with it and keep it on top of the subforum for years to come.
Nick Kaufman said:
As solid and on point as Wetzel's piece is, it won't gain any traction with those major media outlets that also have gazillion dollar contracts with the NFL. The majority of buffoons out there still live in a world where "If ESPN doesn't say it, it didn't happen"; so, unless it gets some play on the four-letter, or someone such as PK pumps it, it will remain just a piece that ties it together for those who don't buy into the NFL's narrative
FYI, I'm on your side. I just wanted to make a point that the texts can be interpreted in several different ways, and it doesn't require mental gymnastics. Hence, the absurdity of the Wells Report drawing a clear conclusion from them.kartvelo said:
So much has been made of the "incriminating texts"—Wells went out of his way to describe Brady's entire post AFC Championship exchange with Jastremski as highly suspicious—that I was struck when I saw an article in The Guardian laying out the full texts.
Here is how the Wells Report describes Brady's interaction with Jastremski:
But even still I was struck that Wells didn't see fit to include Brady's sentiments that nothing inappropriate was done ("You didn’t do anything wrong bud") and that they had nothing to worry about ("No worries bud. We are all good").
Somewhat surprising for a guy so determined to be fair.
Here is how the Wells Report describes Brady's interaction with Jastremski:
And here's the full exchange:
Perhaps it just sticks out because there is so little of Brady in the actual report. Perhaps Wells read these texts as Brady trying to convey a sense of calming confidence. Or maybe even he thought Brady was trying to rewrite the official story now that the jig was up.
But even still I was struck that Wells didn't see fit to include Brady's sentiments that nothing inappropriate was done ("You didn’t do anything wrong bud") and that they had nothing to worry about ("No worries bud. We are all good").
Somewhat surprising for a guy so determined to be fair.
He is not a game official. He is a Patriots employee. The rule in question is concerned at this point only with who is authorized to inflate or deflate the balls.That is the game official who certifies the balls for play. At this point the only allowable activity on the part of the Patriots team is that they can choose not to use a ball that they presented to the game official for certification. They can't fix anything.Ferm Sheller said:
This might be the nexus of Wells request for Brady's communication and a final interview with McNally. The phrase " we are all good " might have been interpreted by the investigators as implying that Brady had also communicated with McNally as well. I am sure the Patriots had another phone number in their files for Mc Nally which Brady could have gotten. Admittedly this would not be proof that McNally deflated the balls but it would establish that Brady had communicated with all parties to this alleged conspiracy.Van Everyman said:
As previously mentioned, keeping track of which balls had already been adjusted would be a nightmare, but I contend that it also wouldn't save any time. Have you ever tried to move balls around in a ball bag? It's not exactly easy. And then sticking a guage into a ball only to find out "oh, shit, I already deflated this one" = time wasted.Ferm Sheller said:
Take them out of the bag - it's easier. It can probably still be done in the alotted time too. I think he took a piss though.
This is like 10 pages ago, but I just finally caught up so:Myt1 said:
People don't joke about things that could implicate, but they do joke about things that 'could implicate' but realistically don't.
For example, two coworkers might be texting about something and one might text that it sounded inappropriate' ('oh I was windsurfing in Mt. Baldy yesterday') and the other one writes 'if you don't like it, take it up with HR', and they both get a chuckle.
But then later that person is accused of harassment. Suddenly that text could be taken out of context even if the original topic was actually innocent.
Or, they could be texting and the guy might actually text something actualy a little inappropriate. She's not offended but anyway he says 'oh don't report that to HR' haha and they both laugh. Later that guy is accused of harassment, and the text is there.
All the stupid shit people joke about. Joking about incriminating things is funny. 'Haha I've been drunk since noon'. Or 'oh man I drank too many margaritas at lunch' or 'I'm stealing copy paper' etc. Some stupid pointless witch hunt could turn up some conveniently 'corroberating' text messages.
Volin with a pretty tough article on Kraft arguing that the Pats stonewalling of Goodell gave him no choice.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/13/patriots-were-punished-for-cover/4KCNOBJBG32HBS8QtBNOvM/story.html
I'm not sure I totally agree. For one, this isn't a criminal proceeding – McNally doing a phone interview wasn't that unreasonable. And Brady refusing to turn his phone over, as noted, is defensible as well.
Bigger point he's making is that Kraft thought his relationship with Goodell would prevent the League from coming down too hard on them. Given how contentious this has been from the get-go I have a hard time buying that.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/13/patriots-were-punished-for-cover/4KCNOBJBG32HBS8QtBNOvM/story.html
I'm not sure I totally agree. For one, this isn't a criminal proceeding – McNally doing a phone interview wasn't that unreasonable. And Brady refusing to turn his phone over, as noted, is defensible as well.
Bigger point he's making is that Kraft thought his relationship with Goodell would prevent the League from coming down too hard on them. Given how contentious this has been from the get-go I have a hard time buying that.
crystalline said:
You implied the money angle in the budget part, but you left out that his wife who is worth a third of a billion dollars is rabidly defensive of Brady and incredibly business savvy about image and marketing--which includes how much how this plays out is worth, and to whom.
Even if we are not hearing about it, it is basically impossible that Giselle is not a player in this.
Under the right circumstances, Wells could read a mother's day card as proof of incest.
One of the problems with the Wells report's assessment of the text messages is that the league made it clear in the punishment phase that they were starting from a presumption of guilt. So if the entire process begins with the presumption of guilt it is very easy to manufacture a context of meaning that makes it seemingly obvious that the texts confirm exactly what you are searching for.
This was a conviction first in search of a charge and then in search of evidence.
Confirmation bias anyone?
In fact, as far as the national barking about all of this goes, it is incredible just how powerful that confirmation bias has been.
One of the problems with the Wells report's assessment of the text messages is that the league made it clear in the punishment phase that they were starting from a presumption of guilt. So if the entire process begins with the presumption of guilt it is very easy to manufacture a context of meaning that makes it seemingly obvious that the texts confirm exactly what you are searching for.
This was a conviction first in search of a charge and then in search of evidence.
Confirmation bias anyone?
In fact, as far as the national barking about all of this goes, it is incredible just how powerful that confirmation bias has been.
I doubt they'll guarantee a veteran QB salary for just a few games, which is what they need to do unless they roll the dice in the first game and then sign someone (or re-sign someone cut after camp).
Assuming Kraft elects to take this business out of school and into federal court for any number of reasons (though there seems to be limited potential for success). How much mileage can he get out of the fact that the league (and it's minions) have without a doubt damaged his franchise, his reputation, his players' reputation? According to Wetzel he received a letter from the league misstating the circumstances of the initial findings. Amazingly the first major leak in the press contained this misinformation. It's pretty clear it came from a league staff. By most any read, the league intentionally leaked it or at best made no effort to correct false information that had been sourced from their offices that was causing obvious damage to a marquee franchise. Based on the behavior on the sidelines of Kensil to Schofield (sp?) the league was going from the get go tear into the Patriots.
How much value does this have in a federal suit?
How much value does this have in a federal suit?
There's a lot to hate about this post:
The science is hardly the least important part of this. If the science is flawed, then a key leg of the stool that was used to justify the punishment is broken. Without the scientific justification, there is no evidence that the balls were deflated prior to the AFCCG.
Well, the Wells report did exonerate Belichick and Kraft. And Brady was accused of maybe being "generally aware".
Wouldn't you think the punishment for past offenders of the same violation be somewhat relevant? If not, the onus is on you to explain. Most football coaches are dicks; so being a dick is hardly a reason to punish the Pats excessively.
The 2nd half score shows how irrelevant the 0.5 difference in psi actually is.
I wouldn't call a joke text an actual threat.
The Wells report left a lot of holes, many of them big enough to drive Mark Henderson's snow plow through. It's certainly fair game to discuss those holes, especially as the league is using that garbage report as justification for such an extreme punishment.
Are the Pats and/or Brady blameless in all this? Don't know, to be honest. We don't know all the circumstances behind the refusal to make McNally available for another interview. We don't know why Brady said he didn't know a guy that had been an employee of the team for 32 years, one who was obviously close to a guy, Jastremski, that Brady did know reasonably well. That last claim is worthy of our skepticism, and smells worse than Brady's refusal to turn over his phone records.
But that doesn't change the fact that a supposedly independent investigation was nothing more than a story crafted to support the league's initial conclusion, and that should be a huge embarrassment to the league. Not the fact that the footballs may have been underinflated by 0.5 psi.
Well, it was the media/NFL that turned Spygate into a "league embarrassing shitstorm". When caught, Belichick cooperated, turned over the tapes, and never did it again. The whole episode was mostly forgotten. And there was nothing dubious at all about the formations the Pats ran in the Ravens game; the same trick play had been run by other teams in the NFL. It's just extremely rare, and Harbaugh whined to take the heat off the fact that his team twice blew 14 point leads. And none of those things should have figured into the punishment. NONE. Why? Because none are illegal, except for Spygate. And the team was already punished for Spygate, quite severly in fact. If Goodell is using any of those things as justification for this punishment, then he should be fired.uncannymanny said:
The science is hardly the least important part of this. If the science is flawed, then a key leg of the stool that was used to justify the punishment is broken. Without the scientific justification, there is no evidence that the balls were deflated prior to the AFCCG.
Well, the Wells report did exonerate Belichick and Kraft. And Brady was accused of maybe being "generally aware".
Wouldn't you think the punishment for past offenders of the same violation be somewhat relevant? If not, the onus is on you to explain. Most football coaches are dicks; so being a dick is hardly a reason to punish the Pats excessively.
The 2nd half score shows how irrelevant the 0.5 difference in psi actually is.
I wouldn't call a joke text an actual threat.
The Wells report left a lot of holes, many of them big enough to drive Mark Henderson's snow plow through. It's certainly fair game to discuss those holes, especially as the league is using that garbage report as justification for such an extreme punishment.
Are the Pats and/or Brady blameless in all this? Don't know, to be honest. We don't know all the circumstances behind the refusal to make McNally available for another interview. We don't know why Brady said he didn't know a guy that had been an employee of the team for 32 years, one who was obviously close to a guy, Jastremski, that Brady did know reasonably well. That last claim is worthy of our skepticism, and smells worse than Brady's refusal to turn over his phone records.
But that doesn't change the fact that a supposedly independent investigation was nothing more than a story crafted to support the league's initial conclusion, and that should be a huge embarrassment to the league. Not the fact that the footballs may have been underinflated by 0.5 psi.
In other news - fans of teams that have trouble beating the Patriots support the Brady suspension...
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12881342/poll-shows-fans-support-nfl-sanctions-tom-brady
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12881342/poll-shows-fans-support-nfl-sanctions-tom-brady
Playing Devil's advocate for a minute (thanks, Marge), Goodell and the NFL aren't a court of law, either. We have people here certainly more qualified than I to discuss this, but I think due process, reasonable doubt, and all the other principles in a democratic republic are more of a vague concept in this scenario. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if a judge, in a hypothetical case, would tell the plaintiffs, "Sorry, but you are a member organization and you're subject to the bylaws (and whims) of the NFL." As for TB and the phone records, I have no doubt that he is under no obligation to share that information absent a subpoena, but I have to guess (no, really, it's a guess) that the NFL doesn't have to sit on their hands if they don't get what they asked for.Van Everyman said:
Focus on first part of second sentence.
And this as well
Speaking of - has it been addressed anywhere why the Wells report gave an opinion on the verdict? Shouldn't an independent report have simply presented the facts / evidence and left it to the NFL to interpret? Or was the whole point of a verdict so the NFL could claim independence? Either way, seems fishy, unless I am off base on what these types of reports normally do.
Speaking of - has it been addressed anywhere why the Wells report gave an opinion on the verdict? Shouldn't an independent report have simply presented the facts / evidence and left it to the NFL to interpret? Or was the whole point of a verdict so the NFL could claim independence? Either way, seems fishy, unless I am off base on what these types of reports normally do.
If I was paid 5 million dollars by the NFL, I would most likely find that Brady was more likely than not complicit.
If I was paid 5 million by the NFLPA, I would most likely find the opposite.
I gotta think that where the money is coming from helps frame the investigation and which facts you place more emphasis on. Human nature and all.
If I was paid 5 million by the NFLPA, I would most likely find the opposite.
I gotta think that where the money is coming from helps frame the investigation and which facts you place more emphasis on. Human nature and all.
"Preponderance of the evidence" and "more probably than not" are the same standard of proof, just saying it different ways. But, earlier in the week I read some of the Wells report on Martin to compare the burdens of proof used or mentioned. As a disclaimer, I didn't read it all, but went to the areas where the burden of proof was mentioned in the Patriots report and couldn't find him using the "more probably than not" standard. His language in the Martin report was "sufficient evidence exists to support a finding that..." I find that problematic in the sense that he went into this investigation with an understanding he needed to satisfy a certain BoP, and did not outline that in the Martin report. It's possible they have had that issue come up in arbitration and are more aware now than a year ago, but it could also mean they went into this investigation with certain goal.
What could be easier than concluding that a preponderance of the evidence supports your conclusion when you leave out any evidence that doesn't?
I cannot have a rational conversation with people who argue otherwise, just as I can't have a rational discussion with people who contend that the 2007 taping was ok because the League prohibition came in the form of a memorandum to 32 teams rather than a formal amendment of League rules (see Kraft thread).Doctor G said:
I would be stunned if the Patriots argue that this is acceptable.